REMAINING PURITAN:
THE HISTORY OF A SEPARATIST CHURCH IN
MASSACHUSETTS, 1620-1895
By
JONATHAN S. NORMAN
Bachelor of Arts
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma
2008
Submitted to the Faculty of the
Graduate College of the
Oklahoma State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
May, 2015
REMAINING PURITAN:
THE HISTORY OF A SEPARATIST CHURCH IN
MASSACHUSETTS, 1620-1895
Thesis Approved:
Dr. James F. Cooper
Thesis Adviser
Dr. James L. Huston
Dr. Ronald A. Petrin
ii
Name: JONATHAN S. NORMAN
Date of Degree: MAY, 2015
Title of Study: REMAINING PURITAN: THE HISTORY OF A SEPARATIST
CHURCH IN MASSACHUSETTS, 1620-1895
Major Field: HISTORY
Abstract:
Most of the attention directed at the churches of New England in the seventeenth and
eighteenth century has focused on their initial success and subsequent decline—if not a
decline in the membership of the churches, or the spirituality of the populace, then at
least a decline in communal and covenant piety. The First Church of Middleboro,
Massachusetts provides a counter-example to that model. The First Church was unique
in its covenant fidelity through several centuries. The purpose of this paper is to answer
the question of how this church managed to maintain its conservative, Calvinistic,
Congregational, Separatist identity. The church was established under the guidance of
Plymouth, and therefore had strong ties to a Separatist past; a past that was more intent
upon church and state distinctions, progressive views of religious truth as revealed by
experience, and endeavors to evangelize. The church also had the privilege of being
influenced by powerful preachers, an educated laity, and practices that strengthened its
covenant identity. This paper looks at the background of the initial group, the founding
documents that helped to lay a cornerstone for the church’s development, the adaptability
of the church to new practices, the charismatic preachers, and the rituals that strengthened
its covenant and church purity. Ultimately, this thesis is designed to give a greater
understanding of the inner workings of a church body as it progressed through several
decades, and to further demonstrate the diversity among churches in New England that is
often neglected in favor of broad studies of New England’s religious history.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
Page
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1
I. FOUNDING: 1620-1708 ..........................................................................................10
II. ADAPTING: 1709-1777 .........................................................................................39
III. SUSTAINING: 1778-1895 ....................................................................................76
CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................102
REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................106
iv
INTRODUCTION
Whatever our church has left undone…will anyone deny that she has stood for righteousness, for God, and
for God's work, ever since that winter day in 1694, when those nine women and eleven men organized
under the leadership of revered Samuel Fuller, whose dust on yonder hill-top is yet awaiting the Master's
word to arise?1
Massachusetts’s spiritual and social landscape underwent significant changes
through the colonial and revolutionary eras. The region moved increasingly toward a
commercialized, individualistic, pluralistic society and away from its Puritan foundations,
with its emphasis on close-knit communities and strictly Calvinistic doctrines. The
aftermath of the Great Awakening in the 1740s brought a rise in individual spirituality
and opposition to dogmatic orthodoxy. And as Massachusetts approached the Revolution
new prospects presented themselves: a new nation meant new opportunities, and some
churchgoers sought out a rational religion to go along with their enlightened philosophies
and commercial enterprises. Churches rejecting staunch Calvinism and historic
Congregationalism increased in number.2 Those maintaining the communal or doctrinal
principles of the founding generation dwindled steadily, making any remaining loyalty to
the first settlers’ ideals a compelling study
G.W. Stearns, “Two Centuries in God’s Work,” in Two Hundredth Anniversary of the First
Congregational Church in Middleboro, Mass. (Middleboro: Published by the Church, 1895), 8.
2
Perry Miller, “Jonathan Edwards to Emerson,” NEQ, vol. 13 (December, 1940), 610, “Errand into the
Wilderness,” WMQ, vol. 10 (January, 1953) and The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century (New
York: Macmillan Publishers, 1939); also George L. Haskins, Law and Authority in Early Massachusetts: A
Study in Tradition and Design (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1960), ix-x; Richard P. Gildrie,
The Profane, the Civil, and the Godly: The Reformation of Manners in Orthodox New England, 1679-1749
(University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994), 7-11.
1
1
It is this shift in the religious atmosphere that provides the context for the present
study. The question of how churches that originally ascribed to the beliefs of the Puritan
founders moved away from those beliefs could be asked and it would surely turn up
fascinating studies—indeed it has.3 But perhaps a more interesting question, one that has
not as commonly been addressed, and one this paper considers, is how a church remained
true to Puritan doctrine and communalism despite waning covenant fidelity and growing
theological challenges in the eighteenth century.
Over forty years ago, Kenneth Lockridge published his research on the town and
church of Dedham, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In it, he described the church’s
original foundations, which were closely tied to the town, and its subsequent change, or
“decline,” over several generations. Due to the close bond between the town and church,
and the town’s efforts to create a utopian community through religious policy (i.e. the
church), the breakdown in one inevitably affected the other.4 Similarly, this paper
evaluates a specific church in a Plymouth Colony town, Middleboro, Massachusetts, and
endeavors to understand why it, despite having similar beliefs as Dedham, remained
relatively unchanged.
Unlike the Dedham church, Middleboro First Church possessed an ability to adapt
its theology and character to the changing times without sacrificing the historic positions
enumerated in its church covenant and articles of faith. Throughout its history the church
3
See Perry Miller, The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century and From Colony to Province
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953); Kenneth A. Lockridge, A New England Town: The
First Hundred Years (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1985, 1970); Bruce C. Daniels, The
Fragmentation of New England: Comparative Perspectives on Economic, Political, and Social Division in
the Eighteenth Century (New York: Greenwood Press, 1988); James F. Cooper, Tenacious of Their
Liberties: The Congregationalists in Colonial Massachusetts (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
4
Lockridge, New England Town, 22-24, 79-90, 116.
2
encountered scandals in the pulpit, a split in membership,5 changes in church practice,
and the shifting spiritual landscape of New England before and after the Revolution.
They faced every obstacle any other church in New England faced. However, while the
experiences of many churches tend to support an interpretation of change resulting in
movement away from Puritan values, the First Church resisted the trend. Its
perseverance in the historic beliefs of New England makes it rare among churches
established before the eighteenth century, causing a historian to wonder how.
The answer to that question is greatly aided by the discovery of extant sources
from the church. Recently, scholars have located a cache of records, member relations,
and sermon notes in the possession of the First Church, dating from the early eighteenth
century and extending through the nineteenth. The quantity and variety of these sources
provides a glimpse into the mind and practices of the church, corporately, individually,
and from both sides of the pulpit. They allow for a greater understanding of the church
with respect to its foundations, practices, and the context that might allow for its
idiosyncrasies and continuity to develop. They also reveal a church that tenaciously
guarded its Congregational rights, its covenant fidelity, and its historic understandings of
church/state relations, truth, and evangelism.6


How churchgoers in Middleboro remained faithful adherents to the church
covenant, articles of faith, and communal identity is the central question of this study,
and it is a question answered, in large part, by examining their historic connection. The
First Church descended from the Separatists, a sectarian group within a sectarian group
5
Harold F. Worthley, An Inventory of the Records of the Particular (Congregational) Churches of
Massachusetts Gathered 1620-1805 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970), 372.
6
Credit for collecting much of this material must go to the Congregational Library in Boston. Middleboro
is one of many in their digital archives [http://www.congregationallibrary.org/nehh/collections].
3
(the Puritans), and that connection was a major contributor to the church’s identity.
There has been a tendency in surveys of New England to recognize the doctrinal
similarities between the Non-separating Puritans of the Bay Colony and the Separatists of
Plymouth, without drawing necessary distinctions, thus blurring any differences that
could prove useful in explaining the First Church’s constancy. Historian J.M. Bumsted
laid some blame on Perry Miller, who “demolish[ed] Plymouth’s…claim to fame: its
influence in the establishment of congregational church polity,” and relegated the
distinguishing marks of Plymouth to the fringe. This practice, followed by many
influenced by Miller, is unhelpful in understanding the factors that might contribute to
Middleboro First Church’s identity.7
If the influence of Separatism in Plymouth-related churches is not properly
recognized, it becomes difficult to understand the character of the First Church and the
qualities that enabled it to sustain itself. Bumsted argued that the Separatist influence
was underestimated, and that it “indirectly influenced church-state relations and
ecclesiastical history [in southeast Massachusetts] far beyond 1691.” This, he said, was
due to “the Plymouth system” being “far less insistent upon a territorial church and
uniformity than…its neighbor to the north,” displayed by their ambivalence toward a
university-educated clergy, synods, and state-sanctioned religious policy.8 Noticing
similar notions of Plymouth Colony’s Separatist peculiarities, Mark Peterson argued, “the
distinctive separatist background of the Plymouth colonists…guaranteed that Plymouth’s
John M. Bumsted, Pilgrims’ Progress: The Ecclesiastical Hisory of the Old Colony, 1620-1775, (New
York: Garland Publishing, 1989; Dissertation at Brown University, 1965), 4. This trend has changed since
Bumsted made his argument, but still the distinctions are often disregarded as irrelevant in many studies of
New England.
8
Ibid, 1-5. For the analysis that Bumsted challenges, see Perry Miller, Orthodoxy in Massachusetts, 16301650 (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1959), 125-140
7
4
religious culture would differ from that of Massachusetts and the other New England
colonies.” He went on to examine the life of the Plymouth church, before and after
incorporation with the Bay Colony, to defend his understanding—concluding that lay
participation heavily influenced the church. According to these historians, Plymouth
churches were distinct from Bay Colony churches, in both ideology and culture.9
As we will see in the first chapter, the different views of church-state relations—
between Separatists and Non-separatists—contributed to the First Church’s ability to
develop with a degree of freedom from outside forces, ecclesiastic or civil. The concern
for Non-separating Puritans in Massachusetts was drawn from Winthrop’s “city upon a
hill” and the imperative that they provide an example, in both state and church, for the
rest of the world, particularly the Church of England, to emulate. Plymouth did not share
the same concern for a uniform society, nor of being an example for the rest of the world;
it was not as initially interested in the state’s involvement in the church; churches,
therefore, possessed a greater ability to form according to the mentality of their respective
members, who had congregated into voluntary associations.10
The Middleboro First Church, then, provides a convincing case study for Bumsted
and Peterson’s conclusions: that certain qualities inherent to Plymouth’s Separatism
transformed the region that encompassed Middleboro, and affected churches differently,
even after Plymouth was incorporated into the Bay Colony. The First Church’s
Separatist heritage was considered vital to its continuance in the faith it held dear. Later
Mark A. Peterson, “The Plymouth Church and the Evolution of Puritan Religious Culture,” NEQ, vol. 66
(December, 1993), 572. Also Anson Stokes, Church and State in the United States (New York: Harper and
Bros., 1950), 153; Stokes, long before Bumsted or Peterson, commented, “Plymouth was definitely more
liberal and less theocratic than Massachusetts Bay…In Plymouth the seal of effective authority was in the
rank and file of yeomen; while in Massachusetts Bay it was in the magistrates and the ministers.”
10
J.M. Bumsted, “A Well-Bounded Toleration: Church and State in the Plymouth Colony,” Journal of
Church and State, vol. 10 (1968), 266; this was also Peterson’s conclusion in examining the Plymouth
church.
9
5
chroniclers of the church’s history linked its faithfulness back to the congregations of
Scrooby and Leyden, attributing its success in large part to the maintenance of Separatist
standards. Their covenant and articles of faith were seen as embodiments of the
Separatism espoused by John Robinson, and the beliefs held by the earliest settlers of
America. Its convictions about the church’s relation to the state, its membership
standards, its view on evangelism, and the role of the laity were often a product of its
Separatist heritage. In fact, the church’s Separatist connection provides the most likely
evidence for its New Light sentiments, Revolutionary support, the church’s selection of
ministers, and the prominence of the laity.11
To demonstrate the church’s Separatist influences, the chapters in this study are
organized in a chronological manner, but they are also thematic insofar as they build off
one another. The first chapter explains the foundations and trajectory of the church. The
second provides important events that strengthened the church’s identity. And the third is
the maintenance of that identity through resolute defenses of orthodoxy and recalling its
history as a Pilgrim church.
The first chapter examines the First Church’s close connection to the earliest
Separatists through its affiliation to the Plymouth Colony and church, the characteristics
of its covenant and the church’s adherence to it, and its unique Congregationalism. The
affiliation with Plymouth provided greater freedom for the church to develop its culture
of evangelism and tolerance, and contributed to a strong notion of the separation of
church and state that the church would tenaciously defend in later years. Separatism
contributed to the details and importance of the church covenant and articles of faith, the
Separatism’s role in the church’s New Light sentiment and support of the Revolution is discussed in
Chapter II.
11
6
two documents that codified the ideal, and set the foundation for an educated laity and
membership in the church. And Separatism created a Congregationalism in the First
Church intent on its right to develop free from civil or ecclesiastical encroachment, and
which also placed a prominence on the laity in the decisions and direction of the church.
Within these larger themes we will see the First Church’s insistence on a well-educated
laity, evangelism, and ministers with Separatist tendencies.
With the foundation set, the second chapter picks up on the themes from the first
and adds factors that differentiated the First Church from others—even Plymouth. The
church’s adaptability was a critical characteristic for the church’s maintenance of Puritan
ideals, and it relied heavily on its understanding of truth as experiential and progressive.
The result was paradoxical: a church committed to its founding principles but fluid
enough to adapt those principles to the times. This greatly affected the types of ministers
the church selected, resulting in two influential and charismatic preachers: Peter Thacher
and Sylvanus Conant. These preachers not only displayed adaptability but they
supported the church’s covenant purity, the laity’s doctrinal familiarity and role, and the
church’s Congregational freedom.
As will be demonstrated in this second chapter, the laity must be accounted for as
a powerful force in preserving the future of the church. In his differentiations between
the Bay Colony and Old Colony, Bumsted argued that “doctrine was not the important
issue among local saints [in Plymouth],” as opposed to the Bay, but instead “the
particular practices of the individual church” were most important.12 However, the
covenant and articles of faith of the First Church reveal a people invested in its doctrine,
displayed by the specific detail included in each document; both documents were
12
Bumsted, Pilgrims’ Progress, 55.
7
revisited through the individual member relations and corporate renewals; and the
ministers expounded on both in great detail. Doctrine and church practice were
vigorously defended against state encroachment, humane innovations, and false doctrine,
beginning at the church’s foundation, and into the nineteenth century. Rather than being
more concerned with church practice than doctrine, the laity was just as concerned with
both. As many churches abandoned the communalism of their covenant promises and the
Calvinistic doctrines of their confessions, the First Church became even more intent upon
preserving their doctrine and practice; the laity’s continuing desire to hear conversion
relations and renew the church covenant was a sign of an involved and educated laity,
that tenaciously protected its Separatist and doctrinal identity.13
In the final chapter, we will turn to the sustaining of its Separatist-Pilgrim identity
as the church approached the nineteenth century, and beyond. The church—still rooted
in its foundation and standing the test of the eighteenth century—spent much of its time
defending its beliefs from liberal theologies that quickly swept up other Congregational
churches in the region, as well as cleansing itself of impurities from within. Remarkably,
despite a marked increase in disputes between members, the church sustained its
communal identity. Recalling its convictions and heritage was a powerful way of
maintaining communalism and piety in the consciousness of the congregation, because
being in accord with the founders provided a confidence in the rightness of the church’s
identity, helping to revitalize the members’ commitment to each other and future
generations. The First Church’s numerous publications testify to its consistency,
adaptability, and adamant desire to recall its history for the purpose of passing down a
13
The foundation for the educated laity is laid in the first chapter, but the second goes into greater analysis
of the way in which relations were modeled after the church covenant and used as means for preserving
communalism in the church.
8
legacy to its posterity. The importance of “faithfully transmit[ting its covenant] to [its]
posterity” was a theme carried on throughout the history of the First Church, and it would
continue to be done in the nineteenth century through the relations, the covenant, and the
sermons—specifically in anniversary sermons.14 Although the church in Middleboro did
adapt and change throughout its history, it remained a Puritan church in an age when
Puritanism was all but a distant memory.
The hope of this study is to shed more light on a corner of the New England
religious experience not often mentioned in the annals of its history. Historians often
speak of a Puritanism that died out by the eighteenth century, and a way of life that once
was, but no longer existed by the end of the seventeenth century. The Middleboro First
Church challenges that perception. This study seeks to provide answers for the First
Church’s conservative nature, communalism, and covenantal fidelity, but also hopes to
provide explanations for broader studies of similar churches that may have shown similar
tendencies. If nothing else, it will continue to do away with the notion that Puritanism
can easily be defined and applied in like manner to all churches in New England.
14
Book of the First Church of Christ in Middleborough, Plymouth Colony, Mass. with Notices of other
Churches in that Town (Boston: C.C.P. Moody, 1852), 18.
9
CHAPTER I
FOUNDING: 1620-1708
And do also by this act of Confederation, Give up our selves unto another in the LORD…
Promising and Engaging to cleave and walk together in holy Union and Communion, as
Members of the same Mystical Body… Watching one over another, and over all the
Children of the Covenant growing up with us…15
Understanding the uniqueness and continuity of the First Church of Middleboro
requires examination of its founding influences and principles. Those principles were
derived from a Separatist connection that greatly shaped the church’s development.
Despite later changes and adaptations in its practice that came with incorporation into the
Bay Colony, its Separatist connection manifested itself in the church’s dealings with the
civil magistrate, neighboring churches, and its own congregation for years to come.16
This chapter explores the First Church’s roots in light of three defining attributes:
its connection to Plymouth, the church covenant, and its Congregationalism. These three
attributes created the foundation from which the church developed, and all three were
derived from a Separatist influence. As we will see first, the connection to Plymouth,
both politically and ecclesiastically, provided an environment of relative freedom that
allowed the First Church to develop its particular proclivities (i.e. evangelism, lay
influence, church-state relations). Next, the church covenant supplied the cornerstone
15
The confession of faith and church covenant: solemnly made and entered into by the Church of
Middleborough, December 26, 1694 (Boston, 1771), 5-6; also in Book of the First Church, 18.
16
Bumsted, Pilgrims’ Progress, 4.
10
that kept the autonomous church from abandoning a communal identity. It was the
means of preserving the church’s purity, of ensuring an educated laity, of delineating the
standards for full membership, and it remained the standard for measuring the church’s
corporate faithfulness to God. Finally, the unique Congregationalism of the First Church
was defined by an adamant stance on the separation of church and state, and the church’s
right to direct itself. The church, moreover, displayed a greater tendency of lay
dominance, demonstrated by its practice of selecting church officers and sustaining itself
even during the absence of strong direction from the pulpit. In this way the first two
attributes contributed to the uniqueness of the third. These three foundational attributes
will be considered in turn.


The First Church of Middleboro was not officially established until 1694, but its
story cannot be rightly interpreted from that time. Middleboro as a church—along with
its practices, ministers, and membership—existed within Middleboro as a town, and any
understanding of the church’s ability to adapt or maintain itself must account for the
context or framework within which the church began. The connection of the First
Church to its town, and the town to Plymouth Colony, provided a framework within
which the church could remain isolated and operate relatively free from outside
interference to its practices.
Plymouth Colony’s initial method of settling new townships was marked by a
greater liberality than its Bay Colony neighbors. Unlike the Bay Colony, Plymouth
initially exercised lax supervision in the formation of towns, and, by extension, churches.
Whereas the Bay held to strict requirements for freemanship (those able to vote),
including church membership, Plymouth allowed almost any male landowner with
11
orthodox opinions to become a freeman, even Baptists.17 The result was a further divide
between church and magistrate, such that the church was untainted by a mixture of saint
and sinner.18
Contrast between the two regions was a result of conflicting theories of the church
and state that developed prior to leaving England. Puritans settling Massachusetts
believed it unwise to separate completely from the Church of England, and remained part
of that church with the intent of correcting it from America. The Bay Colony founders,
for the most part, did not object to a state-established church, they simply wanted a
scripturally faithful one.19 The result was a territorial church that exercised oversight on
the policies and practices of new towns and churches, and exacted greater punishment
from those who dissented. The Puritans in Plymouth, however, had altogether separated
from the Church of England due to its manifold corruptions, and rejected it as a true
church. They were less inclined toward a state-regulated church than the Bay; after all,
that was the situation they had fled from in England, and they were not quick to return to
it, nor did they show the same level of intolerance toward dissent.20 The sentiment was
derived from as far back as Robert Browne, the first prominent Separatist leader, who
See Michael G. Ditmore, “Preparation and Confession: Reconsidering Edmund S. Morgan’s Visible
Saints,” NEQ, vol. 67 (June, 1994), 303; Ditmore explained the establishment of religion in the Bay
beginning in the 1630s with regulations passed by the General Court. The regulations required that any
fellowship must first notify the magistrate and church elders and gain permission, and that any persons in
an “unsanctioned church” would be “denied the privileges of membership in the civil commonwealth.”
That most certainly included Baptists.
18
Bumsted, “A Well-Bounded Toleration,” 267-268; George Langdon, “The Franchise and Political
Democracy in Plymouth Colony,” WMQ, vol. 20 (October, 1963), 517-518.
19
Miller, Orthodoxy, 14, 73-101.
20
Langdon, “The Franchise,” 517-518; Bumsted, “A Well-Bounded Toleration,” 265-266, 268; see also
John Demos, “Notes on Life in Plymouth Colony,” WMQ, vol. 22 (April, 1965), 264-265; Baptists were
one group shown greater toleration in the Old Colony than the Bay, as noted above. It is interesting that
upon arrival in the New World, Roger Williams did not find Massachusetts suitable to his Separatist
leanings (although Plymouth-influenced Salem defended him), and so he traveled to Plymouth, where
William Bradford said his teachings were “well approved;” William Bradford, History of Plymouth
Plantation, ed. William Davis (New York: 1908), 299.
17
12
argued that all Christians have freedom in considering what is lawful, and that “the
Magistrate’s commandment, must not be a rule unto me of this and that duty, but as I see
it agree with the word of God.”21 Despite the gradual introduction of measures to
regulate morality and religion by the General Court after 1650, the Separatist disposition
toward greater religious diversity, and the separation of church and state, was not easily
rooted out of the Old Colony population by civil decree.22
These differences had implications for church practice. Because freemanship was
based on membership in a church, Massachusetts Bay churches began the practice of
keeping detailed records of their admissions and dismissals; the fact that Plymouth
Colony church records are scarce indicates a lack of concern.23 In the Bay, hearing
public relations of conversion experiences was introduced to prevent mixture between
saints and unbelievers, which became especially important when compulsory taxation for
the ministry was introduced in the 1630s. The first mention of Plymouth churches
adopting the practice of relations does not appear until later in the century.24 Moreover,
the towns and churches of Plymouth Colony did not practice compulsory taxation until as
late as 1661, because they felt “it is not knowne to be the Churches Judgement; and wee
are sure it Never was theire Practice.”25
Robert Browne, “A Treatise of Reformation Without Tarrying for Anie…,” in Protestant Nonconformist
Texts: 1550 to 1700, ed. Robert T. Jones (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 2007), 66.
22
Bumsted concluded, the gradual enforcement of Bay standards in Plymouth Colony were often
“haphazard” and “halfhearted;” Pilgrims’ Progress, 4, 26. This seems even more likely in a Plymouth
Colony town that not a major commercial or political hub, with slow communication to and from, i.e.,
Middleboro.
23
Bumsted, Pilgrims’ Progress, 5.
24
The practice of hearing a public relation is first recorded by John Cotton at Plymouth in 1669; Plymouth
Church Records (Boston: Colonial Society of Massachusetts, 1920), v.1:99, 145.
25
Records of the Town of Plymouth (Plymouth: Avery & Doten, 1889), v.1:45, 78, 87; Edmund S. Morgan,
Visible Saint: The History of a Puritan Idea (New York: New York University Press, 1963), 27.
21
13
Many of the issues that the Bay Colony faced in attempting to retain a unified
orthodoxy were caused by its insistence upon an established church; the fact that
Plymouth remained comparatively indifferent was one indication of its Separatist
mentality toward church and state. The Bay Colony’s decision to tax the population
made it important that individuals know whether they belonged to the church or not. One
result was conversion relations; because voting was tied to membership, regeneracy was
needed for membership.26 Another was the drafting of the Cambridge Platform in 1648
by a synod of ministers and laymen, which codified the accepted orthodoxy of the Bay
Colony.27 But complications arose when those paying taxes for the support of religion
were barred from membership and the sacraments due to a lack of conversion experience,
resulting in further synods, including the controversial Halfway Covenant.
Massachusetts, although rejecting Presbyterianism, had no qualms about calling several
synods to resolve contentions, including, the synod of 1637 to resolve the Antinomian
crisis, the Cambridge Platform synod in 1646-48, the Halfway Covenant synod in 1662,
and the Reforming Synod of 1679-80.
Meanwhile, Plymouth Colony churches remained relatively apathetic and rarely
implemented most of the measures that Massachusetts doled out until the 1691 merger.
Only the Plymouth church began the practice of hearing conversion relations, and that
was not until 1669.28 Moreover, Plymouth only met in council one time, in 1675, and
then only because of the necessity from King Philip’s War. The coming together of
Langdon, “The Franchise,” 517.
Despite one delegate from Plymouth (Ralph Partridge of Duxbury) attending the assembly that drafted
the Cambridge Platform, it was sporadically imported to Plymouth Colony, and had no standing there;
Bumsted, “A Well-bounded Toleration,” 267.
28
Bumsted, “A Well-Bounded Toleration,” 267.
26
27
14
clergymen to discuss theological matters concerning an entire region was uncommon in
Plymouth, making the Congregationalism in the region even more sectarian.29
This was the context within which the settlement of Middleboro originated, and
the sectarian notions of church and state carried into its formation as a town.30 That the
settlers of Middleboro town were connected to Plymouth Colony is clear, for all the
inhabitants “belong[ed] to the towne of Plymouth” until Middleboro’s incorporation in
1669.31 They were under the rule of the General Court for the allotment of land, but the
colony records make no mention of religious policy in Middleboro, and neither the
Plymouth church nor colony records exhibited concern over the meeting of individuals to
worship there rather than traveling to Plymouth. Nevertheless, those who worshipped in
Middleboro as early as the 1660s were considered part of the Plymouth church, and
Plymouth weighed in on all religious decisions, including the choice of Samuel Fuller as
their first teacher.
Dec: 19: our brother Mr Samuel Fuller being called to preach at Midlebury did aske counsel of the chh
[church], which motion they took into serious consideration till the next chh-meeting… then the chh did
unanimously advise & encourage him to attend preaching to them as oft as he could, but not yet to remove
his family, but waite a while to see what further encouragement God might give him for his more settled
attendance upon that service there.32
29
The Halfway Covenant was in effect in Middleboro at its founding, but its introduction never seemed to
be an issue with Plymouth or Middleboro. The Plymouth records address it in 1693, describing the
response of most members as “indifferent” (Plymouth Church Records, v.1:172), and they did not accept it
until 1726; Robert Pope, The Halfway Covenant: Church Membership in Puritan New England (Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 201. Middleboro used the Halfway Covenant since the earliest
records with no mention of it causing controversy or alarm; Book of the First Church, 79.
30
Israel Putnam, eighth pastor of Middleboro, later commented, “such was the character of the early
settlers of this town, so much were like the generation, who went before them, lovers of religious and civil
liberty, that they little heeded the humble circumstance in which they were necessitated to worship that
God, whom they loved and served;” in the first of two discourses attached to the Book of the First Church,
19.
31
Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, ed. Nathaniel Shurtleff (Boston: Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, 1855), v.4:41; v.5:19: “the Court graunted that Namassakett shalbe a township, and to be
called by the name of Middleberry…”; Book of the First Church, 4; Thomas Weston provides a list of
forty-one “who are known to have lived here.” The earliest mention of settlers is in the 1640s; Weston,
History of Middleboro Massachusetts (Boston: Riverside Press, 1906), 34-35.
32
Plymouth Church Records, v.1:154.
15
Even though the worshippers benefited from the isolation afforded by Plymouth
settlement patterns, they derived their earliest influences, characteristics, ecclesiology,
and even their first teacher from the church with which they had the greatest connection.
The connection many of the worshippers in Middleboro had with the first
Pilgrims, and the Plymouth church, provided Middleboro First Church a membership
with deeply Separatist roots. Of the twenty-six individuals who eventually purchased the
land from the local natives, at least four were passengers on the Mayflower, and several
were the children of the Separatist-Pilgrims, including their first minister, Fuller.33 When
the First Church was formally established in 1694, Plymouth dismissed “five bretheren &
4 sisters” to join them, constituting almost half of the initial membership of the church.
Among the original members were Abiel and Samuel Wood, sons of Henry Wood, a
member of the Leyden congregation under Robinson. Three others were the sons of
Mayflower passengers: Samuel Eaton (Father: Samuel), Isaac Billington (Father:
Francis), and Samuel Fuller (Father: Samuel). Jacob Tomson was the son of a firstgeneration Plymouth settler (Father: John) who arrived on the Anne in 1623. Along with
members having ties to the first Pilgrims, Plymouth also sent individuals to “helpe them
in carrying on that worke,” and voted to send two deacons, Thomas Faunce and George
Morton, and two respected laymen, Eliezer Churchel and Ephraim Morton, “to
accompany the Pastor thither on that occasion.”34 Their purpose was to assist in the
drafting of the church’s covenant and articles of faith, two instrumental documents in the
33
On the Mayflower: Francis Billington, George Soule (Georg Sowle), John Howlad (Howland), and John
Alden.
34
Plymouth Church Records, v.1:176; George Morton and Thomas Faunce were cousins, and children of
first generation Pilgrims. George’s father was Ephraim Morton, a passenger on the Anne (1623)
16
church’s development. Indeed, at every point in the First Church’s foundation, Plymouth
was present, and so was the connection to a Separatist past.
The selection of Samuel Fuller, Jr. as teacher—then later, ordained pastor—is one
indication of the attitude of the early church to seek ministers with both a Separatist
heritage and evangelistic qualities.35 Fuller was born in 1625, in Plymouth, to Dr.
Samuel Fuller, Sr., a passenger on the Mayflower, a physician, a deacon, and a renowned
individual in the Plymouth community. Fuller, Sr. was well known for his visit to Salem
during a scurvy outbreak in 1629, and for his influence among the church there in
implementing its Congregationalism.36 It is difficult to imagine Fuller’s father not having
a profound effect on his understanding of religious teachings, especially with the
emphasis Separatists placed on training up their children, and the frequent references to
catechizing them.37 If the covenant and articles of Middleboro First Church are any
indication, Fuller, Jr. did not stray far from the teachings of his father’s church.
Fuller, Jr.’s name is found in most of the early accounts of the Middleboro town,
including the purchase of land, and it is likely that his influence, knowledge, and labors
were most significant in the development and maintenance of the Indian mission
churches there. He was not college educated—another glaring distinction from the Bay
Colony that required it among its clergy—so presumably his learning came from the
teaching of his father and other early Separatists, along with the writings of their
35
It is my contention that the members of Middleboro were well enough aware of doctrinal distinctions,
and of their Separatist principles, that no pastor could act as “pope.” But it was possible for a minister to
become extremely influential, especially if he appealed to the people’s convictions.
36
Nathaniel Morton, New England’s Memorial (Boston: 1669), 117; Miller, in Orthodoxy, 128-134,
debunked the notion that Plymouth helped Massachusetts become Congregationalist, but there is good
reason to think that Plymouth’s ten years of experiential knowledge would have greatly aided and
influenced Salem.
37
The use of catechisms developed by John Robinson and William Perkins are repeatedly referenced to in
the Plymouth Church Records, v.1:145; 154; 172; 175; 178; Weston, History of the Town, 310.
17
patriarchs William Brewster, John Robinson, and William Perkins.38 Fuller’s knowledge
of theology, demonstrated by his successes in both the mission churches in Middleboro
and the institution of the First Church, along with its covenant and articles, indicates an
understanding of doctrine and church practice that was likely ubiquitous in Plymouth
society.
This point—that theology was not for an elite class or trained clergy only, and
was thoroughly understood by the general populace—could as easily be made for most of
the early members of the Middleboro church, many with ties to early Separatists as close
as their minister. It is a point that cautions against assuming Middleboro members were
unconcerned or unaware of the finer points of theology or their Congregational rights. A
particular evidence of doctrinal knowledge among the general populace is found in the
foundation and maintenance of the Indian mission churches of Middleboro during its
initial settlement.39
One reason for leaving Holland for America included the hope of “laying some
good foundation, or at least to make some way thereunto for the propagating and
advancement of the gospel…in those remote parts of the world.” The desire of the
Separatist Pilgrims was to establish a church based on the principles of sola scriptura and
to spread the gospel to the natives. According to Nathaniel Morton, William Bradford’s
nephew, in 1669 that hope “hath been graciously answered since, by moving the hearts of
many of his servants to be very instrumental in this work with some good success.” In
1649, Plymouth Governor Josiah Winslow, “perceiving that a door was opening for
Bumsted, “A Well-Bounded Toleration,” 268; and Pilgrims’ Progress, 19-20.
Weston also cautioned against the belief that these individuals were not “familiar with the Scriptures,”
but that they used them with “truth and accuracy;” Two Hundredth Anniversary, 59.
38
39
18
successful labor among the Indians,” had formed a corporation, with backers in England,
for the purpose of furthering the endeavor through new settlements.40
Middleboro was one such settlement, located in an area known to the General
Court as Namasket. It was located fifteen miles west of Plymouth, isolated from other
townships by distance—the closest town was Taunton at eleven miles—and the
swampland it was located on, and populated by a sizable native population. Many of the
first settlers lived among that natives there, and maintained peace with them for several
years. Prior to King Philip’s War, there existed three “Indian churches” in the area:
Nemasket, Titicut, and Sowampset, totaling ninety members between them.41 Despite the
abandonment of many of these churches during the war, an “account of praying Indians”
sent in 1685 to the corporation in England by Plymouth governor Thomas Hinckley,
reported seventy Indians still worshipping in the Namasket and Titicut areas, both within
the future town limits of Middleboro.42
The degree of success among the Indians in the Middleboro area is important to
understanding the people that constituted the First Church. Thomas Weston later
commented in his history of the town: “the membership in the Indian churches shows
how earnest and faithful must have been the labors and the exemplary Christian character
of the descendants of the pilgrims living in Middleboro, who without a pastor themselves,
did such effective missionary work.”43 This observation touches on two elements of the
Morton, New England’s Memorial, 11-12; 380.
Book of the First Church, 3; the largest being Sowampset, with 35 members.
42
John Warner Barber, Historical Collections, Being a General Collection of Interesting Facts,
Traditions…Relating to the History…of Every Town in Massachusetts (Worcester: Dorr, Howland, & Co.,
1841), 512; Thomas Hutchinson, The History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay: From the First
Settlement Thereof in 1628, until its Incorporation with the Colony of Plimouth Province… (Salem: 1795;
original, 1764), 313.
43
Weston, History of the Town, 17; the second point is contra Bumsted’s belief that they did not have a
concern with the finer points of theology. Although no extant sources remain concerning doctrine and
40
41
19
Middleboro church’s background that were important to the character established early
on: first, that they descended from the Plymouth Pilgrims and, second, that they were
well versed in their understanding of the church and theology, evidenced by an ability to
establish, convert, and maintain membership among the native population. This
emphasis on evangelism, conversion, and establishing churches had far-ranging
influences on the formation of Middleboro’s mentality of conversion, evangelism, and
religious culture. One important influence was the people’s willingness to evangelize the
natives in the first place.44
The religious background of the first members, the first minister, and the context
of Middleboro First Church’s formation—secularly and religiously—helps to understand
the church’s initial convictions and how the potential existed to create and maintain a
distinct identity. The town in which the church was established belonged to the
Plymouth Colony, and while it was far from practicing no oversight, it did give more
autonomy to the individual towns than the Bay. Even though those patterns gradually
changed, it was not before a mindset of Separatist church-state relations was already well
established. Furthermore, the church that the Middleboro worshippers belonged to held
to the Congregational belief of local church autonomy, only furthering the ability of a
church to create distinctions from other communities; and when the First Church became
practice, it is difficult to imagine that they were able to evangelize, teach, and build a church of faithful
congregants without a “trained” preacher unless they had an adequate knowledge of the Bible and
Separatist principles.
44
It also makes a tenable case for their later support of New Light sentiments. This is further evidenced by
the fact that most Separatist-influenced churches were initially New Light during the Awakening,
including: Plymouth, Middleboro, Halifax, Taunton, Lakeville, and the separating Baptists; see Bumsted,
Pilgrim’s Progress, 124: “In its early phases, the revival…was openly embraced by nearly every minister
in the region...”; see also David S. Lovejoy, Religious Enthusiasm in the New World: Heresy to Revolution
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985), 48-53. Furthermore, Mark Peterson’s assertion that the
Plymouth church became inwardly oriented and “lacking evangelical impulse,” especially among the
natives, does not seem consistent with the number of Indian churches in the colony, or with the efforts of
Plymouth church members who settled Middleboro; see Peterson, “The Plymouth Church,” 578-579.
20
a distinct church in 1694, it even began to distinguish itself from the Plymouth church.
Nevertheless, the church did not abandon its first convictions derived from their
Separatist ancestry, even when idiosyncrasies developed later because of political,
ecclesiastical, or geographical isolation. Those Separatist convictions were engrained
within the First Church, and it would not be long before they were used to defend the
doctrine and rights of the particular church against any innovation or encroachment.


Along with a physical and ecclesiastical connection to Plymouth church and
colony, and the Separatist notions of church and state inherent in the system, the First
Church derived many of its religious convictions from the Separatists as well—especially
in its covenant and articles of faith. In his account of Middleboro’s ecclesiastical history,
Thomas Weston remarked that the church’s covenant and articles were “similar to those
of Plymouth,” and that they “were in accord with the teachings of the venerable John
Robinson, pastor of the Pilgrim Church in Leyden.” Given the First Church’s connection
to the church at Plymouth, and the fact that individuals were sent from Plymouth to assist
in the drafting of its covenant and articles, the resemblance is expected. Weston’s
comment reflects the connection later generations felt they had maintained with the first
Separatists—including those in Holland; but how did the covenant and articles of faith
“accord” with Separatist teachings?45
The First Church’s covenant was orthodox, but it was not typical of most New
England churches’ covenants. There are few examples of a covenant in New England
prior to the First Church—even in Plymouth Colony—that went into as much detail as
Middleboro’s did. One historian remarked that the covenant of the First Church
45
Weston, History of the Town, 442.
21
contained “an unfashionable load of theology,” and that Fuller had the greatest influence
in its formulation.46 Even Plymouth’s covenant was only about a fourth the size of
Middleboro’s—though it also contained appended articles of faith, something Separatist
churches were historically known for.47 Much of Plymouth’s was taken up with the
explanation of what its covenant was, and with whom it was made, namely, God and each
other. It concluded with a vow similar to Middleboro’s—but briefer—where the
members promised to bind themselves to one another, “& in all sincere conformity to His
holy ordinances & mutuall love to & watchfulness over one another.”48 However, no
mention is made of transferring its faith to its posterity, church discipline, relationship
with other churches, or an explanation of the extent and purpose of the sacraments—all
of which were present in the First Church’s covenant.49 Plymouth’s covenant was the
norm for a majority of churches in New England, especially those before the eighteenth
century, and it is evident that the First Church felt a need to make, or remake, clearer
distinctions on what qualified as orthodox doctrine by 1694.
Reasons for the differences between the First Church’s church covenant and others
are manifold. It was due, in part, to the cultural context in which it was drafted, amidst
what was considered a waning in communal piety, and the need for greater clarification
46
John L. Sibley and Clifford K. Shipton, Biographical Sketches of Graduates of Harvard University, in
Cambridge, Massachusetts (Cambridge, MA: 1873-1962), v.5:319.
47
Morgan, Visible Saints, 40-41.
48
Plymouth Church Records, v.1:148; the initial membership of Halifax was aided by the Middleboro
church who dismissed several for its formation (founded, 1734). Their covenant and articles were as
detailed as the Middleboro church, following much of the same tenor, and it displays a growing concern for
clearly articulated doctrine. Prior to the turn of the century, though, it is difficult to find a covenant and
articles of faith with the amount of detailed theology and explicit affirmation as seen in the Middleboro
First Church.
49
Book of the First Church, 18-19.
22
of convictions.50 It also displayed the increasing need for an educated laity that could
defend itself despite failures in the pulpit or surrounding churches. The First Church’s
elaboration of distinctions points to a church’s desire to establish a strong church
covenant during a time often considered the start of “decline;” it furthermore points to the
church’s insistence that it remain central and comprehendible to future church members.
But perhaps most importantly, it was a product of a Separatist culture that fostered the
desire for a faithful community of believers, free from scandalous sins, assenting to
particular doctrinal truths, and providing an historic foundation upon which to remember
its first principles, and recommit if necessary.
It is arguable that the First Church resurrected certain Separatist proclivities in its
church covenant and articles that had begun to decline by the end of the century.
Edmund Morgan demonstrated that the earliest Separatists did not place emphasis on
signs of saving faith for the makeup of the church, but instead placed it upon the
adherence to a covenant and doctrinal competency.51 John Robinson explained:
…this we hold and affirm, that a company, consisting though but of two or three, separated from the world,
whether unchristian, or antichristian, and gathered into the name of Christ by a covenant made to walk in
all the ways of God known unto them, is a church, and so hath the whole power of Christ. 52
Later Congregationalists in the Bay Colony began to expect communicants “to detect
signs of converting grace,” especially evidenced by conversion experiences, in order for
admission to the church (explaining many of the difficulties in dealing with subsequent
generations who did not seem to undergo the same experiences, i.e., the Halfway
50
David Weir, Early New England: A Covenanted Society (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2005),
190.
51
Morgan, Visible Saints, 33-47
52
John Robinson, “A Justification of Separation from the Church of England” (1610), in The Works of
John Robinson, Pastor of the Pilgrim Fathers (London: John Snow, 1851), v.2:132.
23
Covenant).53 Separatists, however, looked for assent to a covenant, a competency and
understanding of sound doctrine, and a life free from scandalous sin. The covenants of
the Separatists often focused on external behavior, a person’s agreement to fall under the
church’s authority, and were accompanied by articles of faith that were subscribed to and
understood. Separatists required, what Edmund Morgan called, an “historic faith” for
inclusion in the church, as opposed to “saving faith” as in the Bay Colony.54 The First
Church seems to have revived the earliest practices of the Separatists by making its
church covenant and articles heavy on externals and deeply theological; however, like
most churches in New England, the First Church began to desire relations of a saving
experience in their life—the mixture of influences created a church that not only required
a relation of God’s grace, but also a competent understanding of doctrine and a life free
of outward offence.55
The First Church’s practice of requiring “historic faith” and assent to the truths of
the covenant and articles ensured a familiarity with certain doctrines and practices among
the members. Both documents required the members to have more than a superficial
understanding of their key doctrines, including: original sin, the incarnation,
predestination, the sacraments, eschatology, and church discipline.56 The First Church,
like the early Separatists, emphasized the importance of doctrinal knowledge, and looked
for an adequate understanding from prospective members. “The Separatists’ confession
of faith,” said Morgan, “involved not only a statement of the candidate’s acceptance of
Christian doctrines but a demonstration of his understanding of them.” This was no less
Peterson, “The Plymouth Church,” 581
Morgan, Visible Saints, 33-47; especially p. 43.
55
Book of the First Church, 15-17.
56
Ibid.
53
54
24
the case in the First Church, and it is key in recognizing the role member relations played
in the church.
The practice of hearing member relations in the First Church was likely adopted
from Plymouth, and was most certainly in use by 1707, when church records began.57
Relations required that a prospective member understand doctrinal principles as they
expressed their hope and desire to join the church. The Plymouth church, described the
admission of new members to the church, and it is reasonable to assume the First Church
practiced similarly. “The practice was for men orally to make confession of faith & a
declaration of their experiences of a worke of grace in the prescence of the whole
congregation.” Although the relation contained their experience of a work of grace, the
evidence of “regenerative grace” was not the only determinative factor for admission, but
instead “that their [doctrinal] knowledge was competent.”58 The Plymouth church
records described what was “the usuall way of proceeding in the Examination of
persons…as to the competency of their knowledge rendring them meet for full
communion,” by listing out several questions that the applicant was asked.
Q: what doe you beleve concerning God? Unity of Essence & Trinity of Persons & some of his
Attributes…
Q: what——concerning man? The state in which He was created, & his Apostacy…
Q: what are the benefits of Christ?
Q: How doe wee come to be made partakers of Christ & his benefits?
Q: what is a church?
Q: what are the ordinances of Gods house?
Q: How ought chh-members to carry it one toward another? …In brotherly love & holy watchfulness. 59
The Middleboro church, like Plymouth, incorporated the use of a conversion
relation and a life free from scandalous sin, along with a competent knowledge of
57
That said, the first extant relation from the First Church (Noah Alden) is not until 1743, so in-depth
analysis of the relations is reserved for the next chapter.
58
Plymouth Church Records, v.1:145. See Morgan, Visible Saints, 30-40; and Aaron F. Christensen,
“‘Pope’ or Persuader? The Influence of Solomon Stoddard in Northampton and Western New England”
(PhD Dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 2005), 23; fn. 32.
59
Plymouth Church Records, v.1:181-182; Weir, Early New England, 209-210.
25
doctrine truth. The covenant stated that all were admitted to the Lord’s Supper if they
subjected themselves to the lordship of Christ and were found “without offence.”60 In the
earliest page of the church record book, the phrases “owned the confession of faith” and
“made confession of faith” were typically followed by “and admitted to communion.”61
It would seem, then, that the Halfway Covenant was a means of retaining people who
might otherwise leave, and that full membership required a greater understanding of right
doctrine and the ability to use it properly in a personal testimony of God’s grace,
something most probably felt they could not do until they had spent some time in the
church, under its preaching and watch.62 In fact, when the records mention those who
were made halfway members it uses the words “owned the Covenant,” implying that all
that was necessary for halfway membership was agreement to be watched over; when the
a person desired to be made a full member they were said to have “assented to the
confession [i.e. articles of faith],” meaning doctrinal knowledge was required.63
The church covenant and articles of Middleboro First, therefore, functioned as
guides for prospective members in formulating a proper relation to the church, because
the evaluating members would look for “competent knowledge” in doctrinal matters.
The applicant was expected to show a desire to “maintain the word and worship of God,”
and to be committed “unto the ministerial exercise of the power of Christ in the
60
Book of the First Church, 18-19.
Middleboro Church Records, dated between 1709 and October 11, 1713.
62
“The Halfway Covenant,” said Morgan, “enabled the Puritans to keep within the church a number of
persons who might otherwise have fallen out into the world.” The Plymouth and Middleboro churches
were able to retain people in the church, under the church’s watch and the pastor’s sermons, giving those
people a sense of belonging, until they felt they understood the doctrines as relating to their personal
experience of grace; see Morgan, Visible Saints, 139.
63
One example can be found in Middleboro Church Records, October 31, 1742; Jackson Southard is
described as having his child baptized, because Southard had “owned the Covenant”, but he is not enrolled
in the church catalogue. This is contrasted with those who “owned the confession” and were subsequently
enrolled (cf. Book of the First Church, 94).
61
26
dispensation of the word.” They were to be “without offence” if they hoped to partake as
a communicant member; this would usually require a full confession of any wrongdoing.
They were expected to voice their agreement for the church to “watch” over them and to
submit to “discipline” if necessary. Finally, they needed to display a working knowledge
of the articles of faith, especially acknowledging their helplessness in salvation, the
sufficiency of Christ, the need for sanctification, and the importance of the church.64 In
these ways the church covenant and articles were extremely important to physical and
spiritual posterity, and as we will see in the next chapter, contributed to the level of
understanding and influence the laity wielded.
It is important, again, to make clear that the First Church did not simply admit
anyone who made a cursory profession. They did not believe the visible church could
consist of a “mixed people, godly, and openly ungodly.”65 The members of the
Middleboro church expected the Separatist requirements for membership: assent to a
covenant, knowledge of doctrine with proper application in an individual’s experience, a
life free from scandalous or habitual sin, and a relation of a work of grace in their life.66
In these ways, the First Church was unique in its adoption of the Bay Colony relation
standards and the Separatist principle of “historic faith.”
The church covenant and articles went beyond the application to individual
members; they also had an important corporate function. Implicit within the covenant
were promises of blessing for obedience, and curse should they fail to uphold their side of
64
Ibid.
Quoted from Morgan, Visible Saints, 108.
66
Bumsted is correct to say that the distinction in halfway and full membership was in a person’s feeling
that they did not possess the right experiential knowledge of doctrine. They may have known it on an
intellectual level, but not an “experiential” level and this kept them from becoming full members; see
Bumsted, Pilgrims’ Progress, 62-63.
65
27
the agreement. The implied consequence was further illustrated by Middleboro’s 1713
covenant renewal, as they became aware of a decline in piety in New England.
[We] being…awakened by the heavy judgments impending over our nation and country; would search our
hearts after what might be in us provoking to God; acknowledging it to be our duty, not only to walk
circumspectly, respecting gross sins and miscarriages, but would also guard against prevailing corruptions
that often prevail among the people of God; especially, to renew our engagements which are laid on us by
the covenant of God, which hath been not only accepted, but renewed, and is hereby renewed and
expressed.67
The church covenant of Middleboro was seen as a real and binding agreement with God,
and it was He alone who could sustain their existence, therefore it was important for them
to know the elements and to evaluate their faithfulness to it. The constant need for
introspection, confession of failure, and recommitment to their first principles was not
unheard of in Massachusetts’s churches, but the maintenance of those practices made the
First Church unique.
Covenant renewals were one important way for the corporate body to remember its
first principles, and to recommit to the communalism it required. Perry Miller, in
examining covenant renewals, reduced the practice to outward civil and moral reform,
using the Reforming Synod of 1679-1680 as evidence.68 More recent studies have tended
to interpret the covenant renewals in New England as a recruitment or conversion tool in
response to a general decline in religion.69 While both interpretations have their merits,
they seem to neglect the most immediate and obvious purpose: to renew the church
covenant, solidify corporate identity, and revive the communalism needed for the
covenant to have any weight. The church covenant and articles, therefore, not only
informed the outline of member relations, it also informed the manner in which covenant
67
Ibid., 20.
Miller, From Colony to Province, 33-39, 116-118.
69
Harry S. Stout, The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 96-99.
68
28
renewals were performed, and the “historic faith” the church needed to adhere to and
maintain corporately in order to exist as a true church.
The covenant renewals and member relations, then, served a similar purpose: both
reminded the current members of their covenant obligations. Member relations, if given
properly, were, in essence, a recurring reminder to the members of the First Church that
they must be knowledgeable in their own doctrine and evaluate themselves in the
maintenance of their covenant oaths—this point will be more fully appreciated in the next
chapter. Renewals were simply a corporate expression of a desire to continue to uphold
the principles on which the church was founded, and like the relations required that the
church remember those first principles and maintain them by admitting those to the
church who knew them well.
The Separatist influence on the First Church’s church covenant adherence,
admission requirements, and the need for educated laypersons, are helpful in determining
what unique qualities contributed to the church’s continuity. In the next chapter more
will be said about how specifically the renewals and relations modeled the church
covenant and articles, and will help to understand how the church could adapt to
changing circumstance but still maintain the doctrine of their covenant and articles.


The influence of Separatism, in both the context in which the Middleboro church
formed and in its founding documents, also created a unique Congregationalism among
its members. Congregationalism was not only a conviction derived from a Separatist
heritage, it was an important means for maintaining covenant faithfulness internally and
separation corruption around them, if needed. The turn of the century witnessed a rise in
individual concerns among churches in New England, often resulting in serious
29
contentions between church members, and a lack of covenantal communalism. This
trend swept through the churches gradually, and Congregationalism’s inability to stem
the tide of growing contention has been cited, by some historians, as one factor for New
England’s “decline.”70 In Middleboro, though, Congregationalism had a different effect.
The principle of Congregational autonomy protected the First Church of
Middleboro, firstly, from the whims of neighboring churches and the civil magistrate. As
explained earlier in this chapter, the environment and beliefs of the First Church provided
the freedom for distinctions—Separatist distinctions, in the case of the Middleboro
church—to develop. Historians have sometimes framed the effects of Congregational
autonomy in the negative with regards to sustaining the communal society envisioned by
the Puritans.71 For these historians, the breakdown in covenant fidelity, and ultimately
the Puritan utopia, was a result of Congregational autonomy. As historian James Cooper
has said, “the principle not only allowed for differences in specific practices but it also
provided no formal machinery to discipline wayward churches.”72 While it is certainly
true that there was no overarching machinery in place, thus making it difficult to sustain
the ideal apart from becoming functionally Presbyterian, the system could work equally
well the other way, especially if a church did not desire change when the consensus
tended toward it. It is tempting to see only the negative effects a congregation’s
autonomy could have on communalism, because they often create the most interesting
70
Cooper, Tenacious of Their Liberties, 170
Ibid.; see Daniels, The Fragmentation of New England, 144.
72
Cooper, Tenacious of Their Liberties, 19, 68-69.
71
30
stories of division;73 but in the case of Middleboro the doctrine proved beneficial to the
maintenance of its founding principles and communal mindset.
In Middleboro, Congregational autonomy was a means by which a church—
especially an isolated, rural church—could essentially practice whatever it wished, within
reason, without threat from outward interference. Due to the principle of Congregational
autonomy, there were no binding synodic decrees or government sanctions for those who
did not comply with every recommendation; consensual agreement to heed the advice of
surrounding churches was all that bound one church to another.74 The same system that
could foster false teaching or differences in church practice (i.e. Halfway Covenant or
Stoddardism) was also capable of ensuring the First Church’s distinctiveness,
idiosyncrasies, and communalism, if desired.75 The aversion to anything resembling
established religion was even more pronounced among churches that owned their
Separatist lineage, and so the First Church’s autonomy was guarded with a greater
resoluteness.76
That said, the First Church did not condone churches acting alone, without
guidance from others. Its church covenant stated, the members would “engage…to walk
orderly in a way of fellowship and communion with all neighbor churches.” The First
Church understood the role of surrounding churches, and felt the watch and advice of
73
See Richard Bushman, From Puritan to Yankee: Character and the Social Order in Connecticut, 16901765 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), 147; Lockridge, A New England Town, 24-30;
Stout, New England Soul, 17.
74
Cooper, Tenacious of Their Liberties, 25-27; According to Morgan, “the doctrine of congregational
independence made it possible for a clergyman to develop ideas different from those of his neighbor
without either being aware of it;” Edmund S. Morgan, “New England Puritanism: Another Approach,”
WMQ, vol. 18 (April, 1961), 236.
75
The influences for the First Church may have originated with Plymouth, but its Congregationalism
allowed for distinctions to eventually develop.
76
The end of this chapter explores the potential for dispute between the town and church of Middleboro in
the case of Thomas Palmer. But the church’s true colors were revealed in later disputes with the town, as
discussed in the next chapter.
31
other congregations was important to its own purity. The church also understood the role
of the state to act in the matters it was instituted for, namely, the enforcement of law and
order. The church’s principles of church autonomy were not created for the purpose of
isolation, but it was—and remained—a safeguard against civil encroachment,
ecclesiastical innovation, or internal corruption if the need arose. Given the First
Church’s Separatist proclivities, the slightest provocation may have warranted the use of
its belief in Congregational autonomy as a means of separating from any perceived
error.77
Along with a greater wariness of outward encroachment, the role of Separatism in
the church’s unique brand of Congregationalism was most pronounced in how it operated
internally. From the outset, all Congregational churches in New England took the votes
and opinions of the laity into consideration, but in the Bay Colony the clergy tended to
have most of the influence because they were typically the most educated and persuasive.
Middleboro First, though, inherited the “lay dominance” of the Plymouth church.78 The
first two ministers of Middleboro, Samuel Fuller and Thomas Palmer, were not university
trained, and were actually laypersons elevated to the pastoral position by the Separatist
practice of ordination by the brethren within the church.79
Separatist notions of the equality of all saints, whether pastor, deacon, or new
convert, were more prominent in the First Church. The church never had ruling elders
because, as it was later put, “there is not much in a name.” Instead the church voted for
committees, consisting of laypersons or deacons, to be formed whenever a matter needed
Bumsted, “A Well-Bounded Toleration,” 266-267.
See Peterson, “The Plymouth Church,” 574.
79
Bumsted, “A Well-Bounded Toleration,” 268; recall that Fuller was selected by those gathered in
Middleboro, not by a council of neighboring ministers, or even by the minister of Plymouth. Also Book of
the First Church, 32.
77
78
32
resolution. Those committees acted in cases authorized to elders in the Cambridge
Platform, evidencing a preference for lay guidance above authoritative officers in the
church. The only other office aside from the pastor was the diaconate; and those elected
deacons were also esteemed, knowledgeable laypersons.80
Moreover, because the laity was well versed in their doctrinal knowledge and had
a profound command in the churches direction, they were not easily corrupted—or
influenced—by the pastor over them. The Book of the First Church, a catalogue of the
church’s history and beliefs, boasted, “We choose our own officers, and depose them
when there is just cause…No pastor or elder has ever interposed to control or embarrass
the action of this church.”81 In the Middleboro church there was a heightened sense of
ensuring that the laity was adequately knowledgeable in the event they should have to
deal with matters of discipline, correction, or edification within their own ranks, or
among the clergy over them. Later generations took great pride in the laity’s role in the
direction of the church.82
The removal of Thomas Palmer, the First Church’s second pastor, due to
intemperance and drinking, displayed the church’s willingness to seek outside advice (so
long as it did not violate their Separatist ideals), while ultimately strengthening the laity’s
80
Book of the First Church, 29. The first mention of a committee formed to act on behalf of the church
concerned Thomas Palmer, and is mentioned below (p. 35). Most deacons were first esteemed laypersons
that rose to that position through the church’s unanimous decision to elevate them; Samuel Wood, one of
the laypersons selected to represent the church in the case of Palmer, is an example.
81
Ibid., 28.
82
The rise of lay liberties and democratization in church government that has been attributed to New Lights
during the Great Awakening (often pitted against Old Lights, who are said to have stood for “order” and
strict control of the laity) was already commonplace among Separatist churches like Middleboro First. This
is why I attribute the church’s Separatism to its support of revival and the New Lights in the next chapter.
See James Cooper, “Enthusiasts or Democrats? Separatism, Church Government, and the Great Awakening
in Massachusetts,” NEQ, vol. 65 (June, 1992), 265-283; especially 270-271; Cooper also challenged the
idea that these principles arose during the Great Awakening.
33
influence for years to come.83 Palmer’s removal was instigated by opposition from the
laity and finalized by a majority vote of the church; and while outside guidance was
sought, there was never any real question about the end result, nor was there question
about the lay’s authority. The removal also showed how the relationship between the
church and civil magistrate was tenuous; it worked well if both agreed on a matter, but
had potential to awaken the Separatist proclivities of the First Church if its right of
autonomy was violated—especially in spiritual matters (i.e. the selection of a pastor).84
In August 1695, less than a year after Middleboro’s formation, Samuel Fuller had
died and the church began looking for his replacement. Between August 1695 and
August 1696 three ministers were invited to supply the pulpit, and in 1696 Thomas
Palmer was called to preach on probation for a quarter year.85 In 1698, the town voted to
give him a yearly salary, and that “his goods shall be brought from Plymouth at the
town’s charge.”86
Palmer’s selection to the pulpit was marked by difficulties from the start. There
appears to have been some opposition (the reasons are unclear) from surrounding
ministers and certain Middleboro church members regarding his settlement by the town.
In 1701 a council was convened, “in order to the comfortable peaceable and regular
settlement and establishment of the gospel orders & ordinances among them.” The
church selected a committee to represent them, and the town selected delegates as well.
83
Plymouth Church Records, v.1:203. See Book of the First Church, 28: the advice of neighboring
churches was sought only if “desired by the pastor and brethren.” The church never felt obliged; only that
it was wise to seek council.
84
One rationale for including this story about Palmer is to juxtapose the situation with that of Sylvanus
Conant forty years later. In both cases the magistrate was involved, but in the former it ended up agreeing
with the church’s decision, whereas the latter case had a different outcome, as we will see in the next
chapter.
85
Middleboro Town Records, August, 1696.
86
Book of the First Church, 6.
34
The church chose Samuel Wood and Ebenezer Tinkham; the former a layman and the
latter a deacon.87 The council voted that Palmer retain his position as minister, and his
ordination took place in 1702.88 The town’s decision to settle him despite some
opposition from the church showed early signs of discomfort from civil involvement in
the church’s affairs; however no further division occurred.
Although opinions between town council and church were divided, it did not take
long for all sides to eventually agree that Palmer was unfit for ministry. Following his
ordination, dissatisfaction from all parties continued to mount, and in November 1706, he
was brought forward on charges of “Intemperance and Excessive drinking.” The
Plymouth church, and clergy from surrounding churches, heard the case against Palmer
ex parte, and “upon a full hearing the cases the councell Judged it proved that he was a
man addicted to drinking…and thereupon disapproved of his continuance any Longer in
the exercise of the Evangelical Ministry there, and advised him to make a peaceable and
Ordely [sic] Secession from the Church.”89 The Middleboro church then requested a
formal council of twelve churches in 1707, to advise them on what should be done with
Palmer. The council’s verdict was unanimous: the church should remove him.90
The First Church removed its pastor by requesting outside council, but the
decision came from the vote of the church, and stood as a testimony of lay influence in
the church for years to come. The vote was recorded in one of the first extant church
records:
87
Wood was later made a deacon in 1734; Book of the First Church, 117.
Middleboro Town Records, November 15, 1698, and again on August 5, 1701; The Book of the First
Church (p. 6) and Weston, History of the Town (p. 444) agree that Palmer was ordained in 1702; however,
the Book of the First Church suspects it may have been sooner.
89
Plymouth Church Records, v.1:203.
90
Ibid.; the churches were: Boston, Milton, Plymouth, Plympton, Sandwich, Barnstable, Harwich, Taunton,
Bridgewater, Bristol, Reheboth, and Rochester.
88
35
Voted…in pursuance of the advice of twelve churches…which have declared that Mr. Thomas
Palmer…ought to be removed from the work of the Gospel ministry, and suspended from communion at
the Lord’s table for his scandalous immoralities…the church doth now declare that they now look on Mr.
Thomas Palmer as no longer their pastor, but as deposed from the work of the ministry... 91
That this entry was one of the first in Middleboro’s church records stood as a reminder of
the corruption that could creep into a church if the laity was not watchful and it likely
reminded any authority over them (future pastors included) that they had a God-given
right to self-governance, by an informed and determined laity. The words of the Book of
the First Church, and all subsequent references to the power of the laity, used the Palmer
case as its example for future generations of the lay dominance in the church. While
most churches would have removed a pastor for such sins, the laity’s prominence already
present in the church was further strengthened, and emboldened them, especially as
events unfolded in the next century.92


The Middleboro First Church’s connection to the early Separatists was physical
and philosophical. Both were essential in forming the initial identity of the church, and
creating an environment within which the church could develop and maintain that
identity. As we have seen in this chapter, the church’s Separatist heritage was seen in
three broad ways: its connection to Plymouth Colony, its founding documents, and its
unique Congregationalism.
The church’s connection to Plymouth—and the early Separatist Pilgrims—
provided the church a context and identity. Separatism had bred a firmer stance on the
91
Middleboro Church Records, June 30, 1708.
Palmer went on to have a successful career in medicine, and according to legend, was later admitted back
to full membership. One writer, in commenting about Palmer, speculated that perhaps his faith got in the
way of his scientific endeavors, and so he abandoned the church; Patricia A. Watson, The Angelic
Conjunction: The Preacher-Physicians of Colonial New England (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee,
1991), 110-111. This, of course, is unlikely. Palmer remained bitter about it, demanded his payment from
the town, and even met with a small gathering in his home for some time after.
92
36
division between church and state, and churches like Middleboro remained cautious of
the state’s greater involvement in church matters.93 Following Governor Bradford’s
death in 1657, Plymouth Colony slowly became stricter on civil and religious practice
due to the pressures from Massachusetts and the threat of religious errors (i.e.
Quakerism), but the changes were often resisted and in many cases led to disorders in the
Colony.94 Because of Plymouth Colony’s lack of rigid orthodoxy, and the uniform
implementation of religious policy, it created an environment of greater religious
tolerance and different expressions of Puritanism. In Middleboro it was expressed in
evangelism to natives and a culture of lay education and lay dominance in the church.
The education of the laity was expressed in the First Church’s insistence on a
detailed church covenant and articles of faith that were firmly adhered to by current
members and appealed to in the admission of new members. Despite a general decline in
covenantal piety throughout New England, the Middleboro church created a covenant and
articles that were thorough in their distinctions and adhered to strongly as a litmus for the
church’s faithfulness—individually and corporately. The documents also provided a firm
foundation for future members to become a full member, and required an adequate
knowledge of doctrine as it applied to their individual lives, thus continuing a culture of
well-informed laypersons in the church. As we will see, this was what defined the First
Church throughout its long history, and provided for its continuity: covenant and
Even Ralph Patridge’s early draft of the Cambridge Platform placed stricter limitations on the power of
the magistrate in church matters than most others at the synod, who believed the magistrate was to enforce
and keep both tables of the Mosaic Law. Patridge’s draft was not used on that particular matter; see Henry
M. Dexter, The Congregationalism of the Last Three Hundred Years, as Seen in its Literature (New York:
Harper & Brothers, 1880), 446-447.
94
Bumsted, Pilgrims’ Progress, 268-271; Langdon, “The Franchise,” 526.
93
37
doctrinal fidelity while being able to adapt to new situations, experiences, and types of
applicants to the church.
Lastly, because of the First Church’s insistence on the rights of particular
churches, strong sentiments of church-state separation, and the education of all members,
there developed a unique Congregationalism that characterized the church as they
approached the next century. Externally, the church’s right of Congregational autonomy
was more pronounced due to Separatist notions of church and state, and is briefly seen in
the case of Palmer, but more so in the events of the next century. Internally, the
Congregationalism of the First Church was marked by a strong influence of the laity in
the development of the church’s identity. The Middleboro church derived its “lay
dominance”95 from the Separatist principles of an educated congregation and the equality
of all Christians in the eyes of God. The First Church spent its initial years without much
guidance from the pulpit, and they would face many more in years to come, causing the
lay prominence in the church to continue to grow. It is important to recognize this, lest
we are tempted to think its charismatic preachers were the sole reason for the church’s
continuity. The later histories of the church would give due weight to the importance of
their pastors, but underlying it all was a recognition of the laity’s rights and influence. In
the First Church, laity and clergy worked in concert to perpetuate a Puritan-like church in
an age that was leaving Puritanism behind.
Again, the phrase “lay dominance” is taken from Peterson’s study on the Plymouth church and the laity’s
influence in determining that church’s development during its early years; Peterson, “The Plymouth
Church,” 573-574.
95
38
CHAPTER II
ADAPTING: 1709-1777
Truly conservative, she has welcomed new ideas and methods, while not wholly losing
her hold upon the ancient landmarks and time-honored truths and usages of the Pilgrim
church of Britain and New England. With the great author…of Congregationalism, John
Robinson, this church…has ever believed that God has yet more light to break forth for
us from his most holy Word; so has welcomed to its arms the revivalism of a Thacher and
Whitefield…96
Prior to the Great Awakening the clergy in New England began to bemoan a shift
in New England churchgoers’ concerns away from the religious and toward the secular,
away from communal loyalties and toward personal gains. Even Peter Thacher, third
pastor of the First Church, lamented a “deadness thro’ the Town” in 1741, evidenced by
“Religion dying, Prayers dropt in many Families, the Ways to Zion unoccupied.”97
Despite the state of deadness, however, there remained latent Separatist predispositions in
the First Church with the potential to be reawakened by revival. As demonstrated in the
last chapter, the church was founded on Separatist principles of church-state relations,
covenant centrality, and a Congregationalism with a strong lay influence. Religious zeal
across all of New England may have plateaued at the turn of the century, but when the
Awakening revitalized Separatist principles, including lay participation, limitations on
clerical authority, and objections to state interference, the founding principles of the First
96
H.A. Hanaford in Two Hundredth Anniversary, 45.
Thacher to Prince, December 21, 1741 in Thomas Prince, An Account of the Great Revival in
Middleborough, Mass. 1741, 1742, during the ministry of Rev. Peter Thacher, with a notice of his
character (Boston: Re-printed by T.R. Marvin, 1842), 9; Bumsted, Pilgrims’ Progress, 26, 67.
97
39
Church reemerged with renewed energy.98
Another characteristic of the First Church that to this point has been hinted at but
not fully explained was its adaptability. We have seen the underlying principles that
influenced the convictions of the First Church, and the political/religious environment
that enabled it to develop its identity unhindered; but, it might be argued, if that was all
that was necessary to sustain covenant fidelity, doctrinal purity, and communalism then
many other churches should have followed similar paths. What, then, enabled the First
Church to adapt to a new era without sacrificing the doctrine and communalism outlined
in its church covenant and articles?
This chapter seeks to answer that question by appealing, again, to the church’s
Separatist connection. The belief of its spiritual forefathers—that the revelation of
Scriptural truth was progressive and experiential—had a profound effect on the First
Church’s selection of pastors, tolerance for new practices, evangelism, and thoughts
about conversion experiences. This progressive understanding of truth was vital during
the era under consideration in this chapter, when two important pastors were selected,
church practices were modified, several hundred new members joined the church at one
time, and the church underwent a dramatic split. Throughout, the church managed to
adapt and survive, while reclaiming its identity as a Separatist-inspired church with
sectarian attitudes of church and state, lay influence, and covenant adherence.


98
The Separatists of the Great Awakening were New Light supporters who separated from what they
believed were corrupt churches in New England. Often they demanded greater lay participation and strict
limitations on clerical authority. The First Church did not separate from the standing order in the same
manner, but they certainly held similar beliefs about the laity, evangelism, and church-state relations. In
fact, the First Church held it long beforehand—as already demonstrated; See Cooper, “Enthusiasts or
Democrats?,” 266.
40
The First Church felt it had descended from a prestigious line of Separatist pastors
dating back to Robinson, and it was important that its ministers continue in that line—
notwithstanding the failure of Palmer.99 The link to Robinson in its history provides an
interesting element in understanding the church’s ability to adapt while sustaining
historic doctrines. It also explains some of the characteristics the church looked for in its
incoming pastors. In Edward Winslow’s account of Robinson’s farewell sermon to the
departing Pilgrims, he records Robinson saying, “if God should reveal anything to us by
any other instrument of his, to be as ready to receive it as ever we were to receive any
truth by his ministry; for he was very confident the Lord had more truth and light yet to
break forth out of his Word.” It would be wrong to conclude that Separatists did not
believe truth to be fixed—for no truth could go beyond the Bible—but they did believe
the full understanding of truth, as revealed in the Bible, was progressive and revealed
through experience. Robinson implored his congregation to not stop at the teachings of
Luther, Calvin, or himself; and that if Luther and Calvin were now living, “they would be
as ready and willing to embrace further light, as that they had received.” He beseeched
them to allow new surroundings, context, and experiences—including inner
experiences—to assist them in unfolding the truth, but being mindful to “examine and
compare it and weigh it with other scriptures of truth before we received it.”100
99
Plymouth Church Records, xviii.
Robinson, Works, v.1:xliv-xlv; Christians of both conservative and liberal camps debated the meaning
of Robinson’s words in later generations. Some took his meaning further than others, but all agreed that
the understanding of truth was progressive, and based on new experiences; see William W. Fenn, “John
Robinson’s Farewell Address,” The Harvard Theological Review, vol. 13 (July, 1920), 236-251. See also
Lovejoy, Religious Enthusiasm, 48-53.
100
41
This recounting of Robinson’s address was well known throughout Plymouth
Colony, and it was part of the First Church’s understanding of its past.101 The allowance
for “further light,” or new light, proved instrumental in the development of Plymouth
churches that remained close to their patriarch’s teaching, and it often guided the
selection of ministers who were in agreement with this understanding of religious truth.
In the First Church it helped to accommodate for changes throughout the eighteenth
century and to select pastors that were open to change but grounded in doctrinal truth; it
also become a foundational principle in the church’s willingness to accept the Great
Awakening.
This understanding of the progressive nature of truth was displayed, firstly, in the
First Church’s willingness to accept new measures that were now implemented by its
affiliation with the Bay Colony. In 1709, the church settled Peter Thacher, a 1706
graduate of Harvard, to replace the defrocked Palmer. The mention of Thacher’s
education is not trivial: he was the first pastor of the church to have an education from a
Bay Colony university—or any university for that matter. Prior to incorporation,
education was not a requirement for a minister to be settled in Plymouth Colony, and
before 1691, at least half the colony’s standing ministry did not have a seminary
degree—including the first two ministers of the First Church.102 It seems probable that
the church placed less importance on where a minister was trained and more importance
on what his heritage and convictions were. The records of the First Church reveal no
issues with selecting a Harvard-educated minister; in fact, the personality and beliefs of
Mention of Robinson’s words is found in the church’s Two Hundredth Anniversary, in a sermon by H.A.
Hanaford, p. 45. It is made in passing, and assumed that the church knew to what he was referencing. It is
also used as his reason for why Middleboro welcomed the Great Awakening, and why the church faithfully
continued into the nineteenth century.
102
Bumsted, “A Well-bounded Toleration,” 268; Book of the First Church, 116.
101
42
Thacher confirmed the church’s tendency to select ministers sympathetic to its Separatist
roots.103
In Thacher, the First Church found a pastor who accorded—in both his
upbringing and practice—with the progressive understanding of truth revealed through
practical experience. He was from a long line of Puritan ministers: his father ministered
in Milton; his grandfather in Boston; and his great-grandfather ministered in Salisbury,
England. The evangelism of Thacher’s father, who preached monthly to nearby Indian
tribes starting in 1680, was a quality reminiscent of Fuller, and one the First Church
surely hoped its new pastor would emulate. Thacher’s father (Peter, Sr.) was not
unfamiliar with changes in church practice while insisting upon the doctrines of
Calvinism. He advocated singing Psalms in the “New Way,” like his son,104 and was
known—infamous in some circles—for his relaxation of membership requirements, and
tests of saving faith, in order to draw in greater numbers of new congregants. It is
furthermore unsurprising to note that Thacher, Sr. was noted by his contemporaries for
being a “practical Christian” with more “liberal” views of religious practice.105 The
approach to practical Christianity, tolerance, evangelism, and progressivism found in the
father was passed on to the son.
There were several “innovations” Middleboro adopted (i.e. relations, Halfway Covenant, educated
pastors) without noticeable division, signifying an ability to adapt without compromising established
beliefs.
104
In 1723, Thacher, Sr. collaborated with Samuel and John Danforth in writing a defense for the singing
of Psalms in the New Way, An Essay…Concerning the singing of Psalms. Thacher, Jr., supported the
measure as well; see pp. 46-47 of this paper.
105
Edward P. Hamilton, “The Diary of a Colonial Clergyman Peter Thacher of Milton,” Proceedings of the
Massachusetts Historical Society. Third series. Vol. 71 (October 1953-May 1957), 52-58; Hamilton, in
commenting on Thacher, Sr.’s diary, notes: “There are indications which make one believe that Peter
Thacher was somewhat liberal in his religion…Sibley felt that Thacher believed ‘more in the grace and
charities of a Christian life than in the severe teachings of a harsh and ungracious theology’…Thacher kept
a little ahead of his time.” Hamilton then uses the example of debating a Quaker, and the level of
“religious toleration” expressed, a quality often associated with Separatist notions of the division in church
and state.
103
43
Thacher, Jr. was a good fit for the First Church. He and the church appeared
united in their acceptance of the progressive or pragmatic innovations in church practice
sweeping through New England in the early eighteenth century, so long as those practices
remained true, in spirit, to the church covenant and articles derived from Scripture. In its
adoption of new practices and procedures, the church did not seem adamant to cling to
the technical point, but instead conformed to Robinson’s thoughts on progressive
revelation of religious practice through practical experience, resulting in a church intent
on making itself relevant to the surrounding culture by adapting old doctrine to a new
age.106
Several examples during Thacher’s pastorate point to the First Church’s efforts to
accept new practices while maintaining its doctrinal standards. While Thacher may not
have introduced all of the practices, he was silent if he had any opposition. One new
practice was diligent record keeping. There are no extant church records prior to 1707, a
fact partially attributable to Plymouth Colony’s willingness to show less concern for
mixture of saint and sinner due to the greater separation in church and state mentioned in
the first chapter. Along with record keeping came the mention of member relations;
again, they were something Plymouth-related churches probably felt no need for before
incorporation.107 With the increasing conflation of town and church in church decisions
after 1691, the need to maintain purity in the congregation likely gave rise to both
practices. In 1707, Thacher began recording new admissions, marriages, baptisms, and
Lockridge argued that the decline in Dedham was attributable to remaining “too true to their doctrines,”
and to “cling[ing] to the technical point[s]” at the expense of consensus and evangelism. While the context
he spoke of was the rigidity of the visible church and the Halfway Covenant, the point is still valid: if a
church was too rigid it could not bend with change, and was unable to survive a new age; See New England
Town, 87.
107
It is difficult to determine when the First Church began the practice, but it appears to have been carried
over from Plymouth.
106
44
“an account of what pricipall votes were Passed in my time att Middlebro.” The first
account of a relation given to the church was a “negro woman” by the name of Margaret,
the servant of church member, John Alden, in January 1709. Her relation was “found
good” and she “was invited to Baptism” and “afterwards came to the Lords Table.”108
Thus record keeping and relations were introduced into the church’s practice.
Changes in the duties of church officers were also presented. Plymouth’s
experience, Palmer’s failures, and the lay dominance established early in the First
Church’s formation undoubtedly contributed to the church’s decision to give greater
duties to officers elected from among the members. With “inconveniences” arising from
the changes or vacancies in the pulpit already, and the insistence on lay influence, the
church felt it proper to give more duties to the deacons, who—to this point—lasted
longer than pastors and were usually long-time, respected members. The changes were
no small matter, however. Even the Plymouth church never thought to alter diaconal
duties, despite early troubles from the absence of a minister to serve communion or
preach to them.109 Nevertheless, in 1724, the deacons submitted a list of diaconal duties
before the church that expanded their duties beyond what most Separatists would have
accepted fifty years beforehand.
1.
2.
[W]e apprehend ourselves obliged to serve the table of the Lord, & to take care that nothing be
wanting thereto, & to be faithful in the distribution of the offerings of the Chh for that End…
We do also apprehend ourselves peculiarly obliged to care for the supply of the table of the
minister for the time being, & to relieve him as such as in us lyes of all distracting incumbrances
& cares for livelihood to be concern’d not only that our people perform all their Ingagements to
him, & to Excite & Stir them up to all necessary Acts of Liberality Charity and Kindness to him as
his circumstances do require -- & to be concern’d for his prosperity…110
108
Middleboro Church Records, dated 1707; January 23, 1709.
Peterson, “The Plymouth Church,” 575-576.
110
Loose Paper, dated March 8, 1724, Middleboro First Church Loose Papers.
109
45
As Bumsted noted in his study, this statement was “considerably more elaborate than the
Cambridge Platform,” and included many duties the Platform specifically allocated to the
ruling elders.111 It also far surpassed any duties Robinson felt deacons were responsible
for, believing deacons were merely the stewards of the church’s physical responsibilities,
and were not to take upon themselves pastoral duties such as serving communion or
supplying the pulpit in the pastor’s absence.112 Whether Robinson would have agreed or
not, it was consistent with his charge to allow God to reveal truth through experience,
being sure to test all new practices by the light of Scripture; something the First Church
felt it had done, evidenced by its vote to accept the new duties.113
A final example of the church’s changing practice was in the congregational
singing, a change that faced more opposition, but which was similarly resolved without
division. Singing the Psalms in meter was, according to the First Church, part of the
“ordinary religious worship of God.”114 But change to a new way of singing was creating
no little opposition in New England. The old way was usually done by a “tuner” or
“liner” setting the tune for the congregation from the New England Book of Psalms, and
was typically unstandardized by notes and unaccompanied by instruments or choirs, often
leaving the loudest person to dictate the melody; the new way, starting with the 1715
publication of An Introduction to the Singing of Psalm-Tunes in a Plain & Easy Method
by John Tufts, introduced the concept of singing by note, sometimes with the
accompaniment of choirs and/or instruments as aids.115
111
Williston Walker, The Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism (Boston: 1960), 213.
Robinson, Works, v.2:364.
113
Middleboro Church Records, February 11, 1722; it was voted that the deacons supply the pulpit if the
pastor was ill.
114
Book of the First Church, 17; article XV.
115
Bumsted, Pilgrims’ Progress, 74-76.
112
46
Despite some opposition in the First Church due to preference, the majority vote
prevailed without division. The church soon adopted the new style of singing with a vote
in 1732, eventually introducing the violin and the choir. Other towns were not as
fortunate in avoiding contention. In Taunton the issue caused a division in the church,
and in Halifax it caused unrest that needed to be settled by a town council. That
Middleboro First accepted the new form of singing without division or appealing to
outside help speaks to an adaptability uncommon even among Old Colony churches.116
The church’s efforts to remain relevant in a changing religious atmosphere
reflected its continued desire to attract new members; another way this was achieved was
through evangelistic efforts. The First Church had a history of evangelism dating back to
the Indian mission churches and Reverend Fuller, and it maintained that characteristic in
the selection of its ministers. Thacher was not only fit for the church due to his
progressive view of practice, but also because he had a strong desire for new converts and
church members. His efforts toward revival resulted in the church’s greatest increase in
membership, and helped it advance from an average, rural church to a beacon of New
Light revivalism in southeastern Massachusetts.
Starting in the 1730s the Great Awakening swept across the colonies. Sporadic at
first, it began to gain credibility and momentum with the theology of Jonathan Edwards
in Northampton, and the evangelism of George Whitefield. Itinerant preachers were
often credited with awakening members who had long been spiritually “dead” due to
pedantic sermons that focused more on the fine points of theology than the application of
the teaching to an individual’s soul. The Awakening was characterized by a theology
116
Weston, History of the Town, 454; Book of the First Church, 27. For more on the disputes in Taunton
and Halifax see Laura A. Becker, “Ministers vs. Laymen: The Singing Controversy in Puritan New
England, 1720-1740,” NEQ, vol. 55 (March, 1982), 79-96.
47
that placed greater emphasis on experiences of regeneration and the individual response
to biblical, evangelistic preaching. It was received with such inexplicable enthusiasm and
success that even its leaders were surprised by the response.117
Not all were pleased with the revival, however. Several clergymen felt itinerant
preachers, like Whitefield, sowed division and dissatisfaction for established ministers
and orthodoxy, prophesying a breakdown in the whole New England Way. In some cases
they prophesied correctly, as dissatisfaction led churchgoers to separate from the standing
order into illegal organizations of new churches that placed greater limitations on clerical
authority and granted more power to the laity.118 Those opposed to the Awakening also
noted what they felt were wild excesses of enthusiasm, which inevitably discredited the
revival for many.119 The disagreement in support of the revival eventually split parties
into what became known as the evangelistic “New Lights” and the standing party, or
“Old Lights.”120
The result of the Awakening, in Middleboro, was revitalization and strengthening
of Separatist commitments (i.e. greater lay participation, church-state relations, clerical
limitations, and experiential religion) already present in the First Church rather than
abandonment of the standing church/minister for newly formed separate churches,
wherein they might need to assert—or reassert—those principles.121 Thacher became a
117
C.C. Goen, Revivalism and Separatism in New England, 1740-1800: Strict Congregationalists and
Separate Baptists in the Great Awakening (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), 3-14; Cooper,
Tenacious of their Liberties, 201.
118
Cooper, “Enthusiasts or Democrats?,” 266; Also Cooper, Tenacious of Their Liberties, 197-201; Alan
Heimert, Religion and the American Mind: From the Great Awakening to the Revolution (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1966), 2.
119
Goen, Revivalism and Separatism, 17.
120
Cooper, Tenacious of Their Liberties, 197-201.
121
Bumsted, Pilgrims’ Progress, 124, 144, 176; Goen, Revivalism and Separatism, 34-37; Bumsted noted,
“Separates withdrew from the standing churches because of the failure or unwillingness of the
establishment to make sufficient reforms in church practice and in its relationship with the state. This
48
New Light, and he—along with several neighboring ministers122—was a major
contributor to the revival’s success in southeastern Massachusetts. Because of the
predispositions of the standing ministry in Plymouth churches the revival in the Old
Colony was unique. “The Old Colony’s revival,” Bumsted observed, “was associated
less with outside talent [i.e., Whitefield] than with the activities of pro-revival standing
ministers in the area.” The revival’s acceptance among the Old Colony populace was
not started by outside itinerants like many other areas; in fact, most had never heard
Whitefield or Edwards preach; instead it began with the efforts of ministers selected by
churches with ties to a Separatist past.123 Thacher and the First Church were already
prone to the defining marks of New Light evangelism and Separatist inclinations; they
had welcomed new understandings of church practice, and prior to the Awakening had
seen 247 new members join the church between 1708 and 1741.124 The revival, for the
First Church, reflected the qualities of Robinson’s farewell speech, in that it encouraged
the “vital, experimental and practical Parts of Piety,” and judged “in scriptural Light” it
was found to be “the genuine Work of the Holy Spirit.”125 The revival’s acceptance in
the church was not surprising.
Though revival was slow to arrive at first, by December 1741 it had reached the
First Church, and was received with great enthusiasm. Thacher wrote to his brother-ininsistence upon the sect ideal of a visible church of genuinely converted unconnected with the civil power
was a reassertion of the principles of separating Puritanism of more than a century previous.” The First
Church did, however, remain relatively moderate throughout the Awakening, maintaining historic doctrine,
not becoming excessive in its emotions, or separating altogether from the establishment. That said, the
church certainly rediscovered some of the Separatist commitments of a century earlier.
122
Especially Josiah Crocker of Taunton, John Porter of Bridgewater, Andrew Croswell, and Nathaniel
Leonard of Plymouth.
123
Bumsted, Pilgrims’ Progress, 124-125.
124
During Thacher’s thirty-seven year ministry the church had 430 received into full communion. Of
those, 183 were received during the years of the Great Awakening, attesting to a strong evangelistic
impulse and inclusivism apart from the revival; Book of the First Church, attached table.
125
Bumsted, Pilgrims’ Progress, 127. Prince, An Account, 29; Thacher to Prince, December 21, 1741, in
Prince, An Account, 12.
49
law, Thomas Prince: “Our Frolicks are turned into Prayers and Praises! DrinkingMatches at least wholly suspended! Many Families that were Bethavens, are now
Bethels!” He related how his church was “not satisfied with one Sermon,” and that he
preached to them several times a day. Thacher even noted that Indians, already a staple
of the First Church’s evangelistic efforts, were included in the revival: “One Thing I must
not forget; I think almost all the Indians that attend our Assemblies, are deeply wounded;
and many I hope savingly and wonderfully wrought upon.”126 Thacher subscribed to
New Light sentiments with ready approbation, and on several occasions allowed itinerant
preachers to preach to his church without fear that they would sow division or discontent
for his ministry.
The Great Awakening in Middleboro brought about several changes to the
membership of the First Church; the most obvious being size. Between 1741, when the
revival began, and 1744, the year of Thacher’s death, the church admitted 183 new
members to full communion, doubling the membership.127 This sudden rise in new
prospects had an effect on the church’s identity. As we saw in the first chapter, a new
member was required to own the church covenant and articles, and to relate their
conversion experience through a public profession, before they were admitted to full
communion; these relations frequently recalled covenant themes and expressed the
Calvinist doctrines of the articles.128 Thacher pointed out in his defense of the revival,
“the doctrines of grace [Calvinism] shining into the understanding, are defended and
126
Thacher to Prince, May 25, 1741; Thacher to Prince, December 11, 1741, in Prince, An Account, 7-9.
Book of the First Church, 89-94; 27.
128
The themes will be seen later in this chapter. For the purpose here, it is important to understand the
impact a large number of new congregants could have on the church’s insistence that the covenant and
articles of faith remain lucid and accessible.
127
50
earnestly contended for, from inward experience.”129 Each testimony, then, amounted to
a sermonette and defense that laid out again, before the entire congregation, the necessity
of the gospel, the importance of knowing right doctrine, and the exhortation to remain
faithful to the covenant and articles. With so many read, there is little doubt it solidified
corporate identity and accepted doctrine.
The surge in new membership also shifted the age demographic of the First
Church. Of those who joined the church between 1741 and 1745, 96 were between ages
11 and 31, and the average age of a First Church member dropped from 35 before the
revival to 27 during it.130 The Awakening had the effect of giving the young, restless
generation in New England an outlet for their enthusiasm. In the First Church it meant
that those who now made up a large portion of the membership owned no property, had
few responsibilities, and found more enfranchisement in the church than the state. This is
an important element to consider in the coming years, when the church enthusiastically
defended its rights against the civil magistrate.
The sudden change in membership also created a church adamant about its beliefs
regarding conversion, the progressive nature of truth, and its doctrine—it also provided
the church a renewed vitality, with members that could maintain those beliefs well into a
new era. Its progressive spirit enabled the church to accommodate new practices and
beliefs to the extent that they did not conflict with the founding principles of its church
covenant and articles. Passionate sermons imploring members to be born again followed
by emotional conversion experiences, sometimes accompanied by outward
manifestations, were now the norm. The doctrine applied to the experiences, as
129
Henry White, The Early History of New England Illustrated by Numerous Interesting Incidents
(Concord, NH: I.S. Boyd and E.W. Buswell, 1843), 396.
130
Bumsted, Pilgrims’ Progress, 131, fn. 82.
51
expressed in the relations, followed Calvinistic understandings of conversion,
strengthening the relevance of the articles of faith. The desire of new prospects to
covenant with the church promoted communalism and reestablished the church covenant
as an essential document to the church’s identity. And the principles of Congregational
autonomy and lay participation were given new life by associating with a New Light
movement that emphasized those traits over established religion and clerical authority.
When Thacher died in 1744, the church sought a pastor that sympathized with the
character of the church born out of both its Separatist identity and, more recently, the
Awakening. The majority of church members felt they had found their man in Sylvanus
Conant—and they fought to retain him.131


Sylvanus Conant of Bridgewater, another Harvard Graduate (1740), was
eventually selected by the church as Thacher’s replacement in June 1744, but not without
difficulty. Following Thacher’s funeral, the surrounding ministers in attendance agreed
to supply the pulpit in turns while the church settled a new minister. Thacher’s son,
Peter, was the favored choice, but he did not express interest. The prolonged search
resulted in a division between a pro-revival majority of the church and anti-revival
members of the precinct, along with a few influential members of the church. If the
themes of the first chapter are recalled, then the tension between church and town should
not be understood to have originated with the Awakening but, instead, with the prevailing
discomfort of the magistrate being involved in the church’s decision. The Awakening
inflamed the issue, however, especially because it renewed the church’s belief in further
131
Ibid., 156-157.
52
separation of church and state—especially on matters of established religion and
compulsory taxation.132
The first issue to divide Middleboro was the declaration of a public fast, to which
ministers were invited to aid in the settlement of a pastor. The officers of the precinct
insisted on choosing half of the ministers invited, or they would not participate. The
nearby minister of Halifax, John Cotton, commented on the ensuing dispute: “At the Fast
when the Ministers were apply’d to for Advice, the Church and [precinct] Committee
appear’d greatly divided in their Sentiments about supplying the Pulpit; the One insisted
on it as their Right, and the other as their’s.”133 It was the practice of the precinct
committee to select the pastor that would minister to the community, and they had the
taxpayers’ money to compensate the minister. The church, however, became
increasingly aware of the dangers in having the precinct reject or accept ministers that
they felt were not worthy of the First Church’s pulpit. Although the church had over one
hundred male members, and only sixteen supported the right of the precinct to select a
minister, the church’s ability to influence the situation politically was hindered by the
recent formation of a new precinct in 1743, disqualifying several members from voting in
the precinct of the church.134
The First Church, therefore, claimed the right to move forward on religious
grounds. In 1744 the church voted to hear Solomon Reed and Sylvanus Conant on
probation; both were pro-revival. When Reed refused, Conant became the favored
132
The words town and precinct are used interchangeably here. The emphasis here is on the church-state
beliefs of the church, not the particular definitions of civil magistrate, state, town, or precinct.
133
John Cotton, Seasonable Warning to these Churches. A Narrative of the Transaction at Middleboro…in
Settling a Minister in the Room of the Rev. Peter Thacher Deceased… (Boston: 1746), v; see Bumsted,
Pilgrims’ Progress, 156-164.
134
Bumsted, Pilgrims’ Progress, 157; Weston, History of the Town, 449; Cotton, Seasonable Warning, 16.
Cotton guessed there were 16 to 17 voting members who opposed the majority of roughly 80 to 90 (there
were over 100 male members at the time).
53
candidate.135 He agreed to preach to the church on September 9, 1744, but by the time he
arrived, the precinct committee had managed to find someone of its choosing. The
choice was Thomas Weld, an Old Light and a person with a questionable past.136 Neither
attribute sat well with the church majority; the former because of its revivalist leanings;
the latter because many members still recalled the failures of Thomas Palmer. The
town’s action enraged the Conant party who then forced their way into the meetinghouse
where Weld had already started preaching, and disrupted the service. Weld ended up
preaching the morning service, and Conant the evening, but the event strengthened the
animosity growing on each side. Each party called a council in an effort to settle the
matter, with the only result being the reinforcement of their respective positions.137
New Light versus Old Light was certainly an issue throughout the proceedings.
Those favoring Weld attributed the disruptive and immoral behavior of the church
members to “the fatal Extravagancies of the Times” by which the town had been “overrun.”138 One member of the precinct committee was so adamantly opposed to the
Awakening, he declared, “that he had rather have a Papist settled among them, than a
New Light.”139 Hyperbolic as that may have been, the Old Lights were convinced of a
need to restrain Awakening sentiments. But most of the church members were not
opposed to the Awakening, and although they did not control the keys to the
meetinghouse or the means of parish funds for the minister, they maintained the power of
popular opinion: that it was the church’s right to elect a minister under whose preaching
135
Middleboro Church Records, July 17, 1744.
He had previously been accused of illicit sexual relations; Bumsted, Pilgrims’ Progress, 157.
137
Sibley and Shipton, Biographical Sketches, v.10:472; Bumsted, Pilgrims’ Progress, 157-158.
138
Ebenezer Morton, More last Word to these Churches: In Answer To a Pamphlet published by the Rev.
Mr. John Cotton of Hallifax… (Boston: 1746), 5.
139
Cotton, Seasonable Warning, 23.
136
54
they would sit. It is unsurprising that those who made up the Old Light faction belonged
to the precinct committee, while the majority of those who made up the New Light
faction were of the church. With fears that New Light convictions drove people to
separation, lawlessness, and extravagance the precinct committee was all the more intent
to ward off those sentiments, especially as they grew in the First Church. The “mob”
action during Weld’s sermon only confirmed their apprehensions.140
The dispute in Middleboro was not merely a result of the revival—despite the use
of “Old Light” and “New Light” as pejorative terms—but of longstanding tensions
surrounding the town’s involvement in the church, dating back to the merger of the Bay
and Plymouth colonies. The First Church always felt it was the congregation’s right to
select the minister—as practiced by its Separatist precursors, and protected under the
Cambridge Platform—and that the would-be minister must first be accepted as a full
member before becoming pastor, something Weld’s questionable past precluded.141 In
his defense of the church majority, John Cotton reminded the churches of the Platform’s
words concerning the selection of officers, and charged the precinct of “assuming the
Power of providing a Candidate for the Church;” a power the church felt did not belong
to the magistrate, especially when many were not members of the visible church.142 The
most the precinct could muster in defense of its position was that it was only fair it have a
140
One of the voices against Conant (and Reed) was Ebenezer Morton, a member of the church minority,
who wrote a polemical response to Cotton, entitled More Seasonable Warnings. In his recounting of the
events he leans heavily on the divisions, enthusiasm, and disorderliness brought by Conant and Reed. The
actions of the church majority during Weld’s sermon, under Conant’s leadership, only seemed to add
legitimacy to his argument; see pp. 11-14 of Morton’s response.
141
Cotton mentions the uncommon manner by which Weld was selected: “without Dismission from any
Church” and not “being received particularly as a Member” in the First Church. Given the First Church’s
insistence on equality, they made it a practice to make a minister a full member first, then elevate him to
pastor, in keeping with the tradition of selection by the brethren (p. 35); Cotton, Seasonable Warning, 30;
Book of the First Church, 32.
142
Cotton, Seasonable Warnings, 9, 19; Halifax Church Records, January 29, 1745.
55
say in the decision, because the whole precinct would support the pastor financially
through taxation—and therein laid the problem. For several churches in the region,
reawakened to the desire for congregational autonomy and the purity of the church, this
mixture of precinct and church stood as a warning against encroachment on their
ecclesiastical rights.143 The First Church fought for its ecclesiastical rights not only
because it desired a minister with New Light leanings, but because to not would open the
door for its identity to be dictated by disinterested parties.
The church majority attempted to reconcile and convince the precinct that it had
overstepped its bounds, but to no avail. In February 1745, a council of neighboring
ministers, called by the majority, requested that objections against Conant be heard from
the opposition. When none of the precinct’s objections were found to be of any weight,
the council voted that Conant be ordained and that the church majority had sufficient
reason to leave the old meetinghouse and form their own. Conant was ordained on
March 27, 1745. Afterward, he and his followers began meeting in the house of Mrs.
Thacher, the wife of the late Reverend Thacher, and a supporter of Conant. They
worshipped there until the erection of a new meetinghouse later that year.144
The dispute went on in the courts for some time after the split, while Weld and
Conant preached to their respective congregations. During the ensuing years the
members under Conant were required to pay taxes for the support of Weld’s ministry,
143
Isaac Backus, A History of New England: With particular reference to the denomination of Christians
called Baptists, ed. David Weston (Newton, MA: Backus Historical Society, 1871; 2 volumes), v.2:62; It is
little surprise that Isaac Backus’s Baptist church in Middleboro (meeting as early as 1748) found a foothold
and support following this incident and the Awakening. A second Baptist church was founded in
Middleboro in 1758, and a third in 1761. Separatism, in all its forms, was not an unknown persuasion in
Middleboro—rejection of infant baptism seemed to be all that was left to make a Middleboro
Congregationalist into a Baptist; see Barber, Historical Collections, 514 and Backus, A History of New
England, v.2:134.
144
Halifax Church Records, March 17, 1745; the town also controlled the meetinghouse, which essentially
forced the dissenting, majority party out of the church to form a new one; Book of the First Church, 37.
56
causing them to file a petition to the General Court in 1748 for relief. The Court, in
response, passed a law changing the town from a territorial parish to a poll parish, by
which every member of the society had liberty to choose the Old Lights or New Lights by
filing their name with the society of which they desired to become a member.145
The Court’s decision on the matter irrevocably altered the way churches were
composed in Middleboro and, perhaps inadvertently, paved the way for the ultimate
separation of church and state, along with the later undoing of compulsory taxation for
ministers. The poll parish allowed for voluntary adherence to a church based on common
opinion rather than local habitation, and weakened the town’s say in matters of the
church.146 Although the practice was new to Massachusetts it was an idea fit for the
earliest Separatists, and therefore all the more welcomed by the First Church. The Court’s
decision helped protect the identity of the First Church, which was now dictated by
conscience alone, without threat of civil interference.
The church remained split until 1750, formally until 1756. Weld gradually fell
out of favor with those who initially backed him; probably due to his ongoing battle to
ward off accusations of sexual immorality. Moreover, with the town now a poll parish,
where individuals could choose the minister to support by taxation, Weld also lost most
of his financial support. In 1749 the Old Light members dismissed him, and decided to
join under Conant who was growing in popularity, even among those who once opposed
him, including the town’s most influential citizen, Peter Oliver.147
Bumsted, Pilgrims’ Progress, 162-163; Weston, History of the Town, 448
Samuel S. Green, Gleanings from the Sources of the History of the Second Parish, Worcester,
Massachusetts (Worcester, MA: Charles Hamilton, 1883), 4; not much has been written on poll parishes,
but the description that they were “voluntary” societies based on opinion comes from Green’s history of
Worcester, a later poll parish.
147
Worthley, Inventory of Records, 372; Bumsted, Pilgrims’ Progress, 160; Oliver was a judge and iron
mill owner. He was a well-respected individual in the community, but losing popularity during the
145
146
57
Conant’s selection by the church, and the popularity he enjoyed in later years, was
understandable given the heritage of the First Church. Conant’s selection displayed at
least three commonalities in the First Church’s choice of pastors. The first was Conant’s
beliefs regarding conversion experiences that conformed to the manner of conversion
which had brought so many members in during the Awakening. The second was his
conciliatory and tolerant approach toward religious dissenters and minority groups, all
while maintaining the church’s longstanding doctrinal convictions. Last was his position
on church-state relations, which were displayed in the events already mentioned, but also
in the years to follow. These qualities made Conant one of the most influential pastors in
the church’s history.
Characterized by a spirit of evangelism and “experiential Christianity,” Conant
was much like Thacher and Fuller. Much of his life is unknown prior to his admission to
Harvard; but it is interesting to note that his great-great-grandfather, Roger Conant, was a
man who traveled from Plymouth and established Salem, a Bay Colony town influenced
heavily by Plymouth Separatism. At Harvard, Sylvanus was known for his intellect and
evangelistic attitudes, and attracted the attention of several New Light ministers. He
quickly sympathized with the First Church in its quarrel with the precinct committee, and
felt it his duty to take the side of the majority in order to bring it to a close.148 While
never claiming the New Light moniker, he never hesitated to make his loyalties known; it
was during his pastorate that Whitefield was invited to the church; he also signed the
New Light Testimony in 1775 and he subscribed to Edwards’s Life of Brainerd.149
Revolution, when he became a Loyalist; see Robert M. Calhoon, The Loyalists in Revolutionary America,
1760-1781 (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1965), 234ff, for a character sketch.
148
Cotton, Seasonable Warnings, 25.
149
Sibley and Shipton, Biographical Sketches, v.10:474.
58
Throughout his tenure, Conant’s sermons exhibited the evangelistic qualities
sought for by the church majority. Sounding like Edwards in one,150 Conant warned his
followers of neglecting “so great a salvation,” and that if they were not within the “Limits
of this Salvation” their case was “infinitely dangerous,” for they stood “on the brink of
hell.” He reminded them of their depravity, and that they were as full of guilt and
filthiness as a “serpent with poison.” He then pleaded that they come to Jesus “& beg
for this free gift,” to “reverence obey & Love him,” and to give him their hearts “in your
early days.”151 The language of Conant’s sermons was passionate, and it was aimed at
stirring the emotions of his hearers: warnings of hellfire were frequent, and persuasive
calls to come to Christ were a necessary component.
Conant, furthermore, possessed an ability to reconcile the old with the new,
displaying the adaptability argued in this paper to have been so crucial in the First
Church’s continuity. He showed this by allowing for diversity in opinion so long as
Christ was upheld as lord. When the Baptist, Isaac Backus, came to Middleboro in 1747,
Conant quickly befriended him, and though the two disagreed doctrinally, they showed a
remarkable acceptance of one another and their respective church members. Backus
frequently mentioned the great things the First Church had done, and upon Conant’s
death he commented, “he ministered there to good purpose.”152 Conant likewise had a
way of calming Old Light fears that revival sentiments necessarily led to enthusiasm and
lawlessness, as he frequently preached on the existence of false outward signs of
“sorrow” or “conviction,” and that true conversion was found in a sincere need for Christ,
150
I have in mind here his popular sermon, Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God, in which he warned his
listeners of the danger in neglecting God’s salvation, and the certain damnation that awaited them.
151
Sylvanus Conant sermon, Hebrews 2:3, undated.
152
Backus, A History of New England, v.2:62.
59
displayed outwardly by obeying his law and leaving “their former practice of sinning.”
In speaking to all sides, he implored them to lay aside “party Spirit” and “party Zeal,”
and to follow the example of Christ in love and charity; both sides, he felt, had legitimate
concerns and valid points, but that tolerance for one another, in the name of Christ, was
of utmost importance.153
Conant was successful in his endeavor to unite opinions. The Book of the First
Church comments that he had “great success in conciliating and uniting the church and
people.”154 His success as a pastor and conciliator was well-known, and was further
confirmed by his selection, in 1770, as one of two pastors to assist a divided church in
Nova Scotia, “hoping he [Conant] may…be instrumental of uniting & reconciling them
one to another, that so a Foundation may be laid for the advancement of their Spiritual
Interest.”155 This quality in Conant’s character further enabled the First Church to remain
relevant, inclusive, successful in bringing in new members, and flexible enough to
survive an increasingly pluralistic society without sacrificing its doctrinal convictions.156
Conant’s inclusive and tolerant nature was displayed by more than just uniting
religious parties under the banner of Christ, but also in the equality he ascribed to all
human beings in the eyes of God. Judging by the First Church’s history of Indian
missions and the inclusion of blacks, Conant comported with the church’s earliest
interests. In 1763, Conant delivered a sermon at Taunton “Upon the Day of the
Execution of Bristol” a sixteen year-old “Negro Boy” who was convicted of murder; in it
he reminded the teenager:
153
Conant sermons, Malachi 3:1, dated December 14, 1744 and Leviticus 26:23-24, dated between 1746
and 1748.
154
Book of the First Church, 10, 38.
155
Neighboring ministers to Conant, Loose Paper dated March 7, 1770.
156
Bumsted, Pilgrims’ Progress, 160; BFCM, 37-38.
60
You are not to imagine, that you are treated with any greater Severity meerly because you are a black
Boy…for you are not; If any of us had done such a horrid Thing as you have, we should be treated as you
are; Your being of a different Colour from us, makes no Odds in this Matter. You have not only an
immortal Soul as we have, but you are of the same Kind of Flesh and Blood that we are; for God hath made
of one Blood, all Nations of Men.157
Conant even went to great lengths to evangelize his own servant, Cuffy Wright, who
made a noteworthy relation of his conversion experiences, written in his own hand, and
was “received to full communion” by the church.158 Conant practiced what he preached,
when he said, “kings and subjects, Masters and servants, have equal liberty and freeness
to the Throne of Grace.”159 The emphasis of the First Church, under Conant’s leadership,
on evangelism and inclusion of people no matter their station in life, race, or prior
religious beliefs is further evidenced by the reception of most people who made a relation
of faith to full communion; as long as Christ was confessed by a relation of conversion,
their life was free from open sin, and the covenant and articles were understood, there
was no dispute about their inclusion.160
The final characteristic Conant possessed which increased his popularity among
the majority was his patriotic support of colonial wars. The French and Indian War,
beginning in 1754, marked a contest between French and British forces over colonial
lands in America. Fears of French and Roman Catholic tyranny were widespread in the
colonies, and Conant was seen as one who steadfastly promoted liberty and true doctrine.
157
Sylvanus Conant, The Blood of Abel and the Blood of Jesus considered and improved, in a Sermon
delivered at Taunton…Upon the Day of Execution of Bristol…for the Murder of Miss Elizabeth McKinstry
(Boston: Edes and Gill, 1764), 20-21; it should be noted that later in the sermon Conant expresses what
would today be considered racist opinions (pp. 34-35 of the sermon). However, Conant did believe all
people were equal in the eyes of God, even if some were more prone to a “barbarous Disposition” due to
their place of origin: “a land of darkness.”
158
Relation of Cuffy Wright, dated March, 1773; Middleboro Church Records, March 28. 1773; for more
on Cuffy’s relation see James Cooper, “Cuffee’s ‘Relation.’: A Faithful Slave Speaks Through the Project
for the Preservation of Congregational Church Records,” NEQ (June, 2013), 293-310.
159
Sylvanus Conant sermon, dated August 1775
160
It is rare to find a relation that does not correspond with the membership list in the church records during
this time. The only relation during this time period that does not correspond to the church’s records is that
of Priscilla Cushman, who gave a relation in 1763. Why she does not appear is not clear.
61
“The Design of our Enemies,” he warned, “is to deprive us of our Religion, Liberty, and
Lives.” Any “pious” or “religious” person, he continued, should therefore take part in
defending the cause of God, or else lose their “Lives, or Liberty.”161 When the war ended
in British victory in 1763, and taxes began to be placed on the colonists in 1765 to pay
off war debts, Conant was again a leader in denouncing such arbitrary actions by an
overreaching government. “With burning words,” remarked Thomas Weston, “he
fearlessly advised resistance…to the odious Stamp Act, the unjust tax upon tea, [and] the
bloody massacre.” Conant even went out with a regiment of the Old Colony, “that he
might stay up the hands and support the feeble knees of those of this church and this town
who were standing and fighting upon the battlefields of the Revolution.”162 This zeal for
colonial causes undoubtedly earned him popularity and support among the First Church
and Middleboro town members.
His patriotic support of wars against French or British tyranny was also consistent
with the church-state views he supported at the start of his pastorate. The beginning and
end of Conant’s ministry are interesting in their similarities. His coming to the church
was marked by a dispute over representation between the church and town;163 and by the
end of his ministry the Declaration of Independence had been signed, something Conant
voiced support for in An Anniversary Sermon, with words that could as easily apply to his
support of Revolution as to his support of the First Church during its dispute with the
precinct committee:
161
Sylvanus Conant, The Art of War, the Gift of God, A Discourse Delivered at Middleborough before
three Military Companies, April 6, 1759…for the Canada-Expedition (Boston: 1759), 7, 9.
162
Thomas Weston in Two Hundredth Anniversary, 72.
163
Backus, in his description of Middleboro First Church’s division placed the narrative within the context
of “the limits of civil government;” these arguments were particularly powerful as the colonies approached
independence and revolution, a result that could be linked to Separatist ideas of separating church and state
mentioned in Chapter I, pp. 23-24; see Backus, A History of New England, v.2:60-62.
62
…our adversaries began to conceive mischief against us—to impose heavy burdens upon us, and to rob us
of our stipulated rights; and because we declined submission to their arbitrary will in all cases, they
attempted, and are still attempting to rob us of our natural rights too. We only prayed for…the free
enjoyment of the privileges included in our natural and stipulated rights, but could not have them. 164
Conant’s sermons in support of the Revolution, and the participation in the war by the
church’s members, displayed the ever-increasing approval of religious liberty and limited
government, a point shown now—in the First Church at least—to be in some measure
attributable to its history of Separatist church-state relations and the progressive
understanding of truth.165


At this point an objection could be raised: if the church was marked by greater
tolerance of religious belief and progressive adaptability in practice, then how did it
maintain doctrinal continuity and communalism? As shown in the first chapter, the
autonomy and flexibility of the First Church granted by its political context and religious
principles were tempered by the importance placed on the church covenant and articles as
faithful summaries of God’s word. Despite alterations in the particular application of
God’s word to church practice, the doctrines of the covenant and articles were
unalterable, because to alter those meant abandoning principles “founded on” the
infallible “Holy Scriptures.”166 The distinction was certainly tenuous, and for many
churches it did not hold up against subtle aberrations in long-held doctrine, but the First
Church achieved a balance in changing the method without changing the message.
The importance of the church covenant and articles in upholding communal
values and doctrinal purity was maintained, primarily, by two practices: corporate
164
Sylvanus Conant, An Anniversary Sermon Preached at Plymouth, December 23, 1776 (Boston: Thomas
& John Fleet, 1777), 27.
165
According to Weston: “In 1777 there were on hundred and seven men from Middleboro in the
continental army for three years or during the war…At one time there were over sixty-four from the First
church absent in active service;” Weston, History of the Town, 139; Bumsted, Pilgrims’ Progress, ch. 8.
166
Middleboro Church Records, June, 1738.
63
renewals and individual relations. The First Church continued to practice both
throughout the eighteenth century, and both were instrumental in re-declaring and
reconfirming the principles of the covenant and articles to each successive generation—
thereby creating generational bonds and giving weight to the church’s convictions. The
practices also gave abiding relevance to the documents as people applied them to current
circumstances.
Although neither practice was unique to the First Church, both remained popular
due to the Separatist principles they confirmed, namely, doctrinal purity based on
“historic faith” and an educated laity. Because the church covenant and articles were
seen as faithful summaries of Scripture, they were used as the measure of faithfulness
both corporately and individually. Historic faith—or owning the covenant and articles—
and the absence of open sin were part of what characterized a full member and a true
church. The covenant and articles, then, provided the standard to uphold and the
doctrines to own in order to prove—and maintain—status as a visible saint or a faithful
church. Both documents were used as a guide for the church’s assessment of itself in
relation to God and for formulating individual members’ relations to the church. The
result was a laity thoroughly and frequently educated in its doctrines because they first
had to express them with clarity in order to join, then revisit them throughout their life
with the church in covenant renewals.
During the pastorates of Thacher and Conant, the church performed several
renewals. The reasons for initiating them varied; some were called on account of public
sins in the church or colony, others for natural disasters, but usually on account of
negative events understood as the judgment of God for breaking covenant promises. In
64
1713, it was due to “heavy judgments impending over our nation and country.” In 1724,
a renewal was called on account of “much division since we have been A gathered Chh.”
The 1729 renewal was due to “a sore sickness,” possibly smallpox, and was accompanied
by several sermons and the admittance of new members.167 The renewal of 1738 was for
the church’s “want of love,” and to determine whether they were in “suitable frames to
communicate at the Lord’s table together.” Renewals in 1727, 1728 and 1773 were also
called for, the first for an earthquake and the other two for droughts.168 Many other
renewals are implied by days of fasting and thanksgiving, even though not explicitly
mentioned in the records.
Renewals served two purposes for current members: to recall the founding
principles of the church and to encourage corporate recommitment to those principles by
examination and abandoning any known sin. Both the renewal of 1713 and 1729 began
with the reading of the covenant and articles of faith, to which the members testified their
consent by standing up.169 Once read and affirmed, the church examined where they had
not upheld the covenant faithfully. The most oft-repeated failures were in their covenant
promises to watch “over the children of the covenant growing up” with them, to walk
together “in holy union,” and to subject themselves “unto the ministerial exercise of the
power of Christ in the dispensation of the word.” The renewal of 1729 lamented the
“neglect of Family Prayer and Family instruction” and “Contempt of the Gospel.” The
1713 renewal expressed the “great evil” it would be “If we should fail of a patient,
peaceable, forgiving tempter, towards our neighbors, or if we should not with
167
168
Middleboro Church Records, April 3, 1713; May 1, 1724; April 8, 1729.
Ibid., July 1, 1728; June 30, 1773; Bumsted, Pilgrims’ Progress, 126; Book of the First Church, 19-20;
24
169
Middleboro Church Records, April 8, 1729
65
meekness…smother all causes of contention.”170 This was followed by a time of fasting
and prayer for forgiveness, which could last hours or days.
Although common practice in New England churches in the 1700s, the First
Church carried out the practice of covenant renewal with some distinctiveness. In almost
every renewal there was an emphasis on the laity’s role in calling for the renewal,
challenging the notion of some historians that renewals were merely the actions of the
clergy or magistrate in order to maintain morality in the face of failing communalism.171
While the church called for renewals for those purposes, it was the church members who
often saw the need for renewal, not the pastor. Unlike the Plymouth church records,
which typically began with the pastor’s actions in commencing a renewal,172 the First
Church’s records ascribed the initiation of the renewal to “the inhabitants” or the
“members of the First Church.” The reason for the 1738 renewal concerned the
members’ belief that they were not in suitable frames to receive the sacrament, and
directed the concern to Thacher, who then called for the renewal.
We, the subscribers, members of the First Church…enquire and resolve to our Rev. Pastor and one another,
whether we are in suitable frames to communicate at the Lord’s table together, and whether we advise it
proper for our Rev. Pastor to administer to us under the general and visible decay of brotherly love among
us.
The members noticed the spiritual decay, and they informed the pastor of their desire to
renew the “covenant we have expressly obliged ourselves to,” calling on him to “lead us
thither” in their covenant renewal.173
170
Book of the First Church, 21.
The most notable was Miller, in From Colony to Province, pp. 105-118.
172
See Plymouth Church Records, v.1:148, 168-169; The 1676 renewal was called for by the General
Court, and the meeting in the Plymouth church was called for by the Elders and Pastor; the 1692 renewal
was recommended by surrounding ministers and the pastor.
173
Book of the First Church, 24-25.
171
66
Another distinction, closely connected to the first, was the frequency with which
the First Church performed renewals. The church performed them with a regularity that
attests to an internal desire among the members to hear the principles of the church
recounted and make reapplication to them with solemn oaths. During the pastorates of
Thacher and Conant at least seven renewals were recorded: 1713, 1724, 1727, 1728,
1729, 1738, 1773; again, this is in stark contrast to the recorded renewals of the Plymouth
church in 1676, 1692, and not again until 1795.174 These distinctions in the First
Church’s desire to maintain covenant adherence must be considered important to the
continuance of the church’s communalism.
Rituals that strengthened the centrality of the church covenant were not only
relegated to formal renewals, however, they were also expressed repeatedly in days laid
aside to hear the public relations of prospective members. The church covenant and the
individual’s covenant with God were inextricably linked, because to desire fellowship
with Christ was to desire fellowship with his body, the church. The covenant and articles
were, essentially, corporate relations of the promises and doctrines that the individual
made with God. It is not surprising, then, that they supplied the formula and standard for
both corporate renewals and individual relations.
The church covenant and articles informed the prospective member’s conversion
morphology and provided the ideal by which the current members tested a person’s
relation. The Book of the First Church stated, “The Covenant and Articles adopted when
the church was gathered were printed…for the use of the church, and for the information
of those who proposed to become members.” It further explained that the church’s
confession (articles) were for “those who propose to join a church, and to the church also,
174
Plymouth Church Records, v.1:148, 168-169.
67
in order that none may join but as such as are agreed in the fundamental doctrines.”175 It
should be remembered from the first chapter that the Separatists emphasized “historic
faith” as a requirement for church membership. Though the First Church adopted the
practice of hearing conversion relations, and even though the Great Awakening
emphasized testimonies of regeneration, a competency in the doctrines of the church was
still, in large part, considered a vital component of determining visible sainthood. A
relation of a work of grace in a person’s life was rarely questioned; but it was imperative
that those being admitted to the church upheld the doctrines of the church as expressed in
their articles and covenant, and that their life was free from scandalous sin.176
There are at least three themes from the church covenant that new members
attempted to follow when creating their relation. First, there was an acknowledgement of
the inability to fulfill the requirements of God’s perfect standard. Next, there was
recognition of God’s sovereign grace in changing their dependence to Christ alone. Last,
there was a pleading for forgiveness of any offenses and a request to join the church and
submit to its watch. The doctrines of the articles were ubiquitous throughout the
relations, and it is uncommon to find a relation that did not allude to each of the nineteen
articles, in an attempt to show doctrinal competency as it related to their individual
experience. If the current members hoped to maintain covenant faithfulness for future
generation, it was imperative they only allow members in who showed competency in the
church’s confessional doctrines and covenant convictions.177
175
The Book of the First Church, 47-48.
See pp. 23-27 and 51-52 of this paper.
177
C.C. Goen, in Revivalism and Separatism, pp. 13-14, observed similar themes of relations during and
after the Great Awakening.
176
68
The first theme of all relations was the admission of their inherent sinfulness,
followed by a desire for salvation, but unable to do so in their own strength. Elkanah
Shaw, in giving his relation, remarked that he was “a Sinfull Creature,” especially with
regard to the “sin of fornication (of wch, I confess before God & men that I was
guilty).”178 Others, like Thomas Cole, simply gave the declaration that they were “a great
sinner.” However it was worded, those hearing the relation expected, as a required
element of a relation, the recognition of unworthiness from the prospective member. To
not confess sin before the church—especially known sins—was sure to call into question
the legitimacy of their visible sainthood.179
This realization of sinfulness caused many, like Joanna Redding, to be “brought to
despair of helping” themselves, and worthy of “nothing but damnation.” “Fear” kept
back Ichabod Morton from presenting himself and his children “in an everlasting
covenant” with God. Mary Savery recognized that she did not have the power within
herself to close with Christ due to a “hard heart.” Elkanah Shaw admitted that he had
“tried to make myself better but could not,” and recognized a need for God’s grace.180
These statements, again, were added purposefully, for they too were derived from the
verbiage of the church covenant.
These themes, of sinfulness and the inability to please God apart from his helping
grace, run throughout the church’s covenant and articles. Article five of the church
explained that all men had fallen with Adam, “and so were brought into a state of sin and
misery, losing communion with God, and falling under his wrath and curse.” The only
Relation of Elkanah Shaw, August 9, 1755. Shaw’s parenthetical statement displays a concern to make
sure it was open and understood that he had confessed his sin, because it was one of the requirements for
full membership in the visible church.
179
Relation of Thomas Cole, 1747.
180
Relations of Joanna Redding, August 4, 1750; Ichabod Morton, April, 1760; Mary Savery, 1750.
178
69
remedy for their sinful state was the “free grace” of God unto sinners, given to them apart
from “any thing wrought in them or done by them.” The drafters of the church covenant
then took those doctrinal principles and applied them to the corporate relation made unto
God and each other in the church covenant: “we do personally present ourselves this day
in the holy presence of God…humbling ourselves before the Lord for all our sins, and the
sins of ours, earnestly praying for pardoning mercy…under a deep sense of our own
weakness and unworthiness.” Because of their unworthiness, the framers of the covenant
repeatedly appealed to “the help of His grace” and “as the Lord shall help us…according
to the measure of grace received.”181
The second broad theme of the relations, derived from the church covenant and
articles, was the shift from a hopeless struggle to a trust in Jesus alone as their hope,
brought about solely by God’s electing favor. This was conveyed in a number of ways,
depending on personal experience, and with varying degrees of assurance, but the
statement—and the understanding of God’s predestining grace—needed to be present.
Several members, including Deborah Cushman, Lemuel Thomas, and Phebe Leach,
related how a God-sent earthquake had awakened them from their spiritual slumber.
Cushman went on to relate that the earthquake drove her to a consideration of God’s
election and her desperate need for Christ.182 Others, like Mary Savery, related that she
was providentially brought to hear a sermon by Peter Thacher, and that she was “maid
willing” to “take the Lord jesus Christ to be [her] only mediatore & Redeemer.”183
181
Book of the First Church, 15-19
Relations of Deborah Cushman, Jun 28, 1760, Lemuel Thomas, 1763, and Phebe Leach, July 20, 1765;
Ichabod Billington, March 9, 1762, mentions a thunderclap that awoke him to his need for Christ.
183
Relation of Mary Savery, 1750.
182
70
Perhaps the greatest expression of the second theme is found in the relation of
Cuffy Wright, the servant of Sylvanus Conant. Cuffy recognized the sovereign election
of God, stating, “he hath please in [h]is great mercy to bring me out of a Land of
Dearkness unto the Land of glorious gospel Light...according to [h]is will.” He went on
to describe his blindness due to sin, but “sance I com to understand the things of god and
Christ my Heart all ways desir spirit[ual] things,” and despite being “unwor[thy] the lest
of all gods marcys” he now had “such thought of Christ in my mind as sumtimes falt very
plesant.” Cuffy recognized that he did not merit or deserve the mercy of God in
salvation, but that he now, by grace, had high thoughts of Christ, and trusted in Him for
deliverance. He finished his relation with the words: “I depend not to Any of my owne
strength of the service which I do promise, but depend Entirly in Christ.”184
The church covenant and articles provided the necessary understanding of God’s
sovereign grace and Christ’s sufficiency to save. The point that Christ must be
acknowledged may seem obvious, but the language of owning Christ was framed in a
way consistent with the Calvinist doctrines of the church’s documents—leaving no room
for heterodox expressions of Christ’s work or person. Article six explained, “that
God…chose and ordained the Lord Jesus…to be the one and only mediator between God
and man, the Prophet, Priest, and King.” Article nine declared, “that the elect of God are
made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the effectual application of it
to their souls by his word and Spirit.” Those giving a relation followed the example of
the church covenant by “earnestly praying for pardoning mercy and reconciliation with
God through the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Then promising to “give up ourselves
184
Relation of Cuffy Wright, March, 1773
71
and our offspring unto…Jesus Christ, our only Saviour, our Prophet, Priest, and King; the
only mediator of the covenant of grace.”185
The final element of all relations followed from obedience to Christ, and was a
statement of the applicant’s desire to fully join the church, submitting themselves to its
watch, discipline, sacraments, and the administration of the Word of God. This desire
was expressed in the final words of every relation. In her statement to the church,
Elizabeth Shaw related her “desire” and “duty…to join with the Lords Covenant people
that with them I may enjoy his special [ordinances].” The relation of Betty Wood was
even more explicit, stating, “it is my Duty to make public confession of Christ, I desire to
do it; & to join in full Communion with this Chh…& with them to enjoy the Privelege of
Special Ordinances…I ask the prayers of this Chh, that I may not be deceived with a false
hope; & that I may…behave at all times as becomes a true Disciple & follower of Jesus
Christ.” Prospective members needed to convey an understanding, with article fourteen,
that “unto [the] church Christ hath given the ministry, grace and ordinances of God, for
the gathering and perfecting of saints to the end of the world.” Without this
understanding, the binding character of the church covenant would be compromised, but
because it remained an expected element of all relations the previous generation expected
the next to proclaim with understanding the need for communal membership.186
The philosophy behind the church covenant was to “enter into a holy covenant
with God and one with another,” and to “give up ourselves, one unto another…promising
and engaging to cleave and walk together in holy union.” This included “watching one
over another,” partaking in the sacraments, and submitting to the “due application of the
185
Book of the First Church, 18-19.
Relations of Elizabeth Shaw, Sep 2, 1770; Elizabeth “Betty” Wood, October 1776; Book of the First
Church, 17.
186
72
holy discipline, with love, care and faithfulness.” Vital to the continuity of the church
was the expression of being in covenant with one another, to submit to the authority of
the church, and to submit themselves to censures, excommunications, or corrections for
the strengthening of their faith. A true relation of personal faith, and one acceptable to
the current members of the church, included an emphasis on the importance of
covenanting together.
Before concluding this chapter, a final word is needed about how these rituals,
especially relations, helped to maintain the educated laity derived from the church’s
Separatism. Given the preferences for lay participation and education spoken of in the
first chapter, it is little wonder that two practices emphasizing covenant integrity,
doctrinal recollection, and self-examination would contribute to the continuance of those
preferences. Both practices not only reinforced doctrinal literacy, but also displayed the
measure of the members’ doctrinal acumen and desire for the covenant communalism of
their church’s founders.
There are two further aspects of the relations that display the knowledge of the
laity, and the extent to which the church ensured competency among all of its members,
no matter the race, gender, or age.
The first is that they are, for the most part, written in the hand of those who made
them. There is no sign that the pastor dictated these relations; the crudeness of Cuffy’s
relation demonstrates some measure of individual formulation; and it meant that the
applicant was expected to form their relation with doctrinal proficiency. This required
sufficient doctrinal literacy, which may seem obvious, except that it included slaves,
Indians, and women, meaning all members were taught in great detail and with a view
73
toward equality — in the eyes of God at least. As historian James Cooper rightly
observed, “Cuffee demonstrates a remarkable fluency with the central tenets of
conversion theology.”187 To have such an understanding demonstrates the lengths to
which the church, and pastor, went in teaching its members according to the covenant
principles and articles of faith, even to those who seem unexpected given the times.
Secondly, the relations were laden with religious doctrine and replete with
scriptural references. The usage of scripture in the relations was more than randomly
interjected, they were woven into the very language of the prospect’s relation, and they
indicate knowledge of the scriptures as well as how to employ them in theological
rhetoric. Theological concepts of election, predestination, atonement, regeneration,
covenant, providence, and the role of the church were expressed with detail and
competency. Covenant concepts of congregationalism, discipline, sacraments, and
communalism were also woven into the relations of prospective members. This not only
ensured that incoming members knew what they were agreeing to, but also reinforced the
principles of those hearing the relations. If the First Church was anything, it was
doctrinally aware in ecclesiology and soteriology, among both the laity and the clergy,
through both renewals and relations.
The relation of Priscilla Booth—along with the relations already mentioned, and
especially Cuffy Wright’s—provides a glimpse of the use of Scripture and religious
doctrine.
…notwithstanding these precious privileges [being born in a land of light] I remained a stranger to the
power of Godliness till it please God to send his servant Mr Daniel Rogers who preached in our meeting
house upon these words in mathew the 11 and 28 Com unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden and I
will give you rest under which sermon it pleased God to Convince me of my danger in living a stranger to
Jesus Christ…
187
Relation of Cuffy Wright, March, 1773; Cooper, “Cuffee’s ‘Relation,’” 306-309.
74
…then it pleased God to Revel Christ to my soul as a suficent Saviour with application to my own soul and
several texts of Scripture set home with power as…Salm 55 and 22 vers with many other places not here to
be Enumerated and I have been ever since much perplexed as to my duty in Coming up to the ordinance of
the Lords Supper till about a year ago it pleased God to Clear up my doubts in that Case from his word in
John the 6 and 55 for my flesh is meat indeed and my Blood is drink indeed and if any man sin we have an
advocate with the father Jesus Chrsit the Righteous the first epistle of John 2 and 1 vers and I desire the
prayers of all Gods people for me that I may be enabled by his Grace to walk agreeable to his will and the
profession I have made…188
Booth’s relation was typical. It expressed her experience through the use of Scripture
proofs, and utilized doctrine in a way agreeable to those evaluating her. This was the
standard practice of the First Church well into the nineteenth century.


The answer to the First Church’s continuity, then, rests in a balance between
adaptability in practice and commitment to principle. The church’s willingness to receive
new ideas, and continually seeking ways to add to its membership, prevented the church
from becoming obsolete and causing its members to find new ways of relevancy in an
age of liberal ideologies. However, the church never lost its determination to keep its
church covenant and articles the basis of its identity. As we will see in the next chapter,
renewals dropped out of fashion toward the end of the century, but the church continued
to preach anniversary sermons and publish works as reminders to remain faithful.
Moreover, relations remained in use well into the nineteenth century, and because each
was essentially a recitation of covenant themes, there continued to be renewals among the
members—even if not as formal days set apart for praying, fasting, and renewal.
188
Relation of Priscilla Booth, April 12, 1747.
75
CHAPTER III
SUSTAINING: 1778-1895
The departure of a church from the strict terms of their covenant with God, is generally
much more gradual than that of individuals. This is seen in their falling away from
sound Christian doctrine. It has sometimes taken not only years, but generations, for a
church to give up “the faith once delivered to the saints,” and to come fully to embrace
an unscriptural one in its stead.189
This final chapter examines how the First Church sustained its identity following
the Revolution and into the mid-nineteenth century. In the first chapter, it was
demonstrated that the church’s identity resulted from political context, ecclesiastical
structure, and its foundational documents. The second chapter displayed how the church
maintained continuity by achieving a balance between flexibility in practice and rigidity
in doctrinal conviction. This last chapter seeks to understand how the church sustained
its identity well into the nineteenth century. Although continuing to adapt to the
changing atmosphere of the newly formed United States, the First Church did not relent
on the centrality of its Calvinistic doctrines, covenant communalism, or Separatist
identity.
There were at least three ways the church sustained its Separatist heritage and
communal identity. The first was by becoming more vigilant and resistant to what they
189
Israel W. Putnam, Two Discourses on The Divine Faithfulness as Illustrated in the History of the First
Church of Middleborough, Mass. During the Period of One Hundred and Fifty Years (January 5, 1845), 8,
published with the Book of the First Church.
76
perceived were false doctrines leading neighboring churches astray, especially doctrines
that rejected the trinity and the inspiration of Scripture. With the selection of Joseph
Barker to the pulpit, the church inherited much from his New Divinity theology,
including its emphasis on moral reform and staunch defense of Calvinistic doctrine.
Secondly, maintaining identity was achieved by an increased desire for church purity,
shown by the considerable rise in disciplinary actions, member confessions, and
reconsiderations of church practices. Lastly, interest grew in the history of the church,
and a desire to maintain the church’s heritage greatly increased by the end of the
nineteenth century. Much like the covenant renewals, the various historical documents
produced by the church reminded members of its past, its principles, and developed a
sense of pride in maintaining their “separation” from the world. Even after the church at
Plymouth succumbed to Unitarianism, the First Church drew heavily on its Separatist
beginnings and committed itself to maintaining the earliest ideals. This collective
memory was a powerful perpetuator of the church’s existence and self-proclaimed
identity as a Pilgrim church, despite the rapid change in American society in the years to
come.


New England had been fraught with theological dangers that Middleboro First
wished to avoid long before 1803, when Unitarianism effectively claimed Harvard
seminary and became widely accepted in most Congregational churches. Heterodox
beliefs had long plagued Massachusetts, but were usually suppressed through civil
policies or ecclesiastical councils. The move toward religious pluralism, however, began
in the late seventeenth century, gained strength from the individualization of piety in the
Great Awakening, and came to fruition during the years of Revolution.
77
Arminianism was one of the more popular and ardently defended theologies that
brought challenges to the Calvinist consensus. The theology of Arminianism was the
antithesis to Calvinism’s doctrines of man’s utter depravity and the particular election of
individuals to salvation. Eventually liberal, antitrinitarian, and moral theology (i.e.
deism) began to question whether man did not have some good in him, and whether
salvation was not available to all individuals, thus borrowing Arminian concepts.
Middleboro First found itself in the middle of these challenges to Calvinist orthodoxy,
and even witnessed the turning of their mother church in Plymouth to Unitarian doctrine
in 1801. It remained vital that the First Church have competent leadership, an informed
laity, and measures that maintained its separation from the world if it hoped to remain
loyal to its founding principles.190
In 1777, Sylvanus Conant died from smallpox, and the church again underwent
the process of finding a pastor fit to take the place of an influential leader. With most
universities displaying tendencies toward Arminianism as early as the Great Awakening,
including Harvard and Yale, ministers that held to the historic dogmas of the First Church
were not as easy to come by, and the vetting process became stricter.191 In 1781, Joseph
Barker was recommended to the congregation as a “suitable” pastor for the church.
Weston later remarked, “it was undoubtedly through his [Barker’s] influence that
[Middleboro First] was kept from changing its faith to that of the Unitarian
denomination.” This may be an overstatement if one considers the gradual pace with
which surrounding churches compromised historic beliefs in favor of new ones, along
190
Daniel W. Howe, The Unitarian Conscience: Harvard Moral Philosophy, 1805-1861 (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1970), 4-7; Bumsted, Pilgrims’ Progress, 211-213; Weston, History of the Town,
455.
191
Heimert, Religion and the American Mind, 189
78
with the laity’s role in the continuance of Middleboro’s identity, but it is still important to
understand who Barker was and how his theology led Weston to comment on his
influence.192
Barker was a 1771 graduate of Yale, a student of Joseph Bellamy, and belonged
to the Hopkinson school of theology. The theological school derived its name from its
major proponent, Samuel Hopkins, a 1741 graduate of Yale, and a contemporary of
Jonathan Edwards. The theology began as a response to more radical elements of New
Light enthusiasm, while maintaining the evangelical attack on religious rationalists and
Arminians. It maintained a staunch Calvinism that pushed for ethical reform, republican
values of limited government, and natural law theories—it was essentially an
amalgamation of Enlightenment ideas with Puritan theology. Also known as the New
Divinity, the theology became popular in New England during the eighteenth century due
to popular preachers like Bellamy. It was a powerful tool in the hands of orthodox
clergymen during the American Revolution, and it is little wonder that it appealed to the
First Church, a church intent upon maintaining its historic positions while adapting to the
new American identity.193
The Hopkinson school that Barker ascribed to was not made up of timid
clergymen. It was a school commonly associated with resolute defenses of Calvinism
against liberal theology and attempts to reconcile doctrines of experimental Calvinism to
192
Weston, History of the Town, 455; Middleboro Church Records, November 5, 1781; December 5, 1781;
The fact that Barker was of the Hopkinsion school can be taken from Weston’s History and a sermon
preached at his interment by Jacob Norton; Norton, A Sermon Delivered Thursday, July 27, 1815, at the
Interment of the Rev. Joseph Barker (Boston: Lincoln & Edmands, 1815), 17.
193
Mark Valeri, “The New Divinity and the American Revolution,” WMQ, vol. 46 (October, 1989), 741769. New Divinity is known as the Hopkinson school and Edwardean Divinity because of its connection to
both. Other influential proponents included Edwards’s son, Jonathan, and Joseph Bellamy.
79
an ethics of moral responsibility.194 Barker was said to have been an intellectual, who
“ably” and resolutely defended the doctrines “of our holy religion” and Hopkinsion
theology, because he believed strongly it was the teaching of Scripture.195 Barker’s goal
was to defend orthodoxy in an era that increasingly substituted rationalism in its place. In
analyzing the attacks upon the Christian religion, he blamed superstition and false
religion for the decline in true Christianity’s credibility. “The natural consequence of
superstition,” he argued, “is, to cause men, when they become in a certain degree
enlightened, to disbelieve the divine origin of revealed religion.” When superstition and
Christianity are mixed, he believed, then men see it as folly, and “discard it all together.”
“Let the christian religion,” he continued, “be separated from superstition, and acted out,
and taught, in its simplicity and purity, and it will recommend itself to every one, who is
governed by reason. Then the age of reason, and the age of christianity, will be
synonymous.”196 Barker did not see a conflict in reason and Christianity, only that
Christianity must be performed in its Scriptural purity, by sound preaching and moral
practice, in order to recommend itself to reasonable people. According to Barker, apart
from sound doctrine and holy living reason becomes unreasonable and religion becomes
superstitious.
Barker shared with Thacher and Conant a view of the progressive understanding
of truth, and adaptability was proper insofar as the orthodox doctrines or covenant
194
Ibid., 742; the New Divinity did diverge from traditional Calvinism in several respects and was opposed
by many traditional Calvinists. The theological minutia does not seem fitting for this study, but it is
important to understand that Middleboro was of a more progressive, experimental spirit, in keeping with
their Separatist heritage. See Joseph A. Conforti, Samuel Hopkins and the New Divinity movement:
Calvinism, the Congregational Ministry, and reform in New England between the Great Awakenings
(Grand Rapids, MI: Christian University Press, 1981).
195
Norton, Internment Sermon, 17; Barker received a Masters of Arts from Yale, Harvard, and Brown; see
William B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit: Unitarian Congregational, 1865 (New York: Robert
Carter & Brothers, 1865), 8:292.
196
Joseph Barker, The Stability of Christ’s Church: A Century Sermon (Preached at Middleboro, 1795), 18.
80
principles of the church were not compromised. In a sermon given at Barker’s death,
Jacob Norton recounted, “while [Barker] justly claimed for himself—the free enjoyment
of the rights of conscience, and that civil and religious liberty which are secured by our
excellent constitution of government, he ever advocated the same claim in relation to
others, however widely they might differ from him in their honest opinions.”197 Barker
was accepting of different denominations and practices, stating in a sermon On the unity
of Christ’s Church:
Into what an almost innumerable number of sects, the church has been divided, since the apostolic age;
each of which, right in their own opinion, have censured, condemned, excommunicated, and sometimes
persecuted unto death, those who differed from the in speculative opinions, and generally about something
trivial, or of quite inferior importance!
He explained: “Christians, who have the same hope, ought not to separate from, or refuse
communion with each other.” And again, “Professing Christians…ought not to be
excluded from the communion of Christians, on account of any erroneous sentiments
whatever, which they may imbibe, which do not introduce another Lord and another
hope.”198 In Barker’s understanding there were issues of real importance and issues of
“inferior importance,” based on “speculative opinions;” the church’s duty was to exercise
charity on matters unimportant to salvation and holiness—one example, he felt, being
baptism.
Barker’s ideas likely would not have supported the Separatists’ initial separation
from the Church of England, but as times changed, and a greater need for Christian unity
against doctrinal error presented itself, it became practical to drop some of the perennial
battle lines. As context and experience changed so did the understanding of Biblical
Norton, A Sermon Delivered…at the Interment of the Rev. Joseph Barker, 19.
Joseph Barker, On the Unity of Christ’s Church, A Sermon Delivered in the Town-House in
Middleborough, April 16, 1807, Before Christians of several Denominations (Boston: Lincoln & Edmands,
1807), 14-16.
197
198
81
truth; this was in keeping with Robinson, Thacher, and Conant, and it was in keeping
with the mentality of the First Church’s understanding of truth. This was confirmed by a
1793 decision, in which, “The Chh met, & after some discourse upon the propriety of
admitting Baptists to occasional communion with us, Voted unanimously, that any person
of a good moral character; & in regular standing in a Baptist chh, may hold occasional
communion with us, whenever he pleases.”199 The church, under the leadership of
Barker, accommodated for certain doctrinal differences by deeming them nonessential;
what remained essential, however, was a life free from open sin, a conversion relation,
and a competency in the doctrines the church still believed essential to the Christian life,
including man’s depravity, Christ’s work and person, the trinity, holiness, sola scriptura,
and the role of the local church.
The Hopkinsion theology that Barker espoused, along with its desire for the moral
reform of society, had an effect on how the First Church preserved its own purity.
Whereas the church records were characterized by revival under Thacher and relative
silence under Conant, disciplinary action and a vocal laity characterized the church under
Barker. Within the first month of his ordination in January 1782, a church meeting was
convened in which three committees were formed “for the purpose of treating with
several offending Members, whose offences have been of long standing.”200 The first
was for dealing with Samuel Pratt, a member under censure for fornication;201 the second,
for Joseph Lovell, a man accused of intemperance by another member, Zechariah
Eddy;202 and the last, for Alice Anthony, “an Indian woman,” guilty of intemperance.
199
Middleboro Church Records, May 3, 1793.
Middleboro Church Records, January 3, 1782.
201
Ibid., February 18, 1783.
202
Middleboro Loose Papers dated August 12, 1783.
200
82
Pratt was promptly excommunicated, Lovell eventually made a confession in 1793, and
Anthony made a confession in 1783 and was restored to the church.203
These disciplinary measures took place as soon as Barker was instated, and the
records under his ministry and beyond continued to be defined by an insistence on church
purity. From 1782 until 1784, the records speak of almost nothing other than Lovell’s
case—with the exception of Pratt’s excommunication, and Anthony’s sin and
confession—and intermittently comes back up until 1793, with his return to full
communion. Deliberations about those under church censure often went for several
years, even decades, a consequence of keeping to their covenant promise to give “due
application of the holy discipline, with love, care and faithfulness.”204 In all, there were
more than a dozen disciplinary cases, several censured, a considerable rise in confessions
of sin, and three excommunicated during the pastorate of Barker—more than all
excommunications in the previous century combined.205


The influence of Barker in keeping Middleboro from heterodox doctrine and
moral decay is an oft-repeated assertion in the church’s annals, but it does not fully
account for the educated laity given so much credit throughout this paper. In the
disciplinary cases mentioned above the membership was always involved, and censures
or excommunications took place by their vote. However, lay participation and influence
203
Middleboro Church Records, February 18, 1783 (Pratt); May 26, 1793 (Lovell); June 8, 1783
(Anthony). Relation of Alice Anthony, June 8, 1783.
204
It does not appear that the church was trying to control or pester its stray members. Those who did not
want discipline were left alone and excommunicated; those who did were dealt with for as long as that
person wished, especially if there was hope of their repentance and return to the church, as the case of
Lovell shows. Bumsted made similar observations, Pilgrims’ Progress, 65.
205
Middleboro Church Records between 1783 and 1805; Those excommunicated were Pratt (1783), John
Leach, and Elkenah Elmes (both in 1803) one other disciplinary case, that of Deacon Abner Bourne, was
halted by his suicide in 1806, making the end result unknown.
83
went beyond simply voting on matters of discipline, they heavily influenced any decision,
sometimes even correcting the pastor.
The case of Samuel Doggett is a sufficient example to display how lay influence
was equally important to the First Church’s ability to maintain doctrinal purity. The
Doggett case displays not only the laity’s voice in the actions of the church, but the fact
that an informed voice still existed at the end of the eighteenth century. This, like so
many times in the First Church’s history, was important when the laity had greater power
to decide the future of the church, especially when the state of the pulpit was uncertain in
the years following Barker’s death in 1815.
Samuel Doggett was born in Middleboro, to a mother who apparently took great
pains to indoctrinate her son in the ways of the Church of England. Doggett, who was a
studious individual, attended Brown University in 1785, where he eventually came to the
conclusion that the Congregational polity was the Scriptural form of church government.
He further concluded that the Christian view of nature and grace was that of Arminius,
and not Calvin.
Following his graduation from Brown, Doggett made application to the church in
Middleboro. Barker, it seems, was willing, “in view of his serious and exemplary
deportment,” to admit him to communion. However, an unnamed deacon of the church
felt that Doggett did not possess the requisite doctrinal qualifications, and his objections
stood against the candidate. In this case it seems that the deacon’s opposition to Doggett
was not wholly unfounded, as Doggett was eventually received at a church in Providence,
and became a decided Unitarian. Though not mentioned in any of the previous local
84
histories, the anecdote provides a glimpse into the balance between laity and clergy, a
balance Middleboro members were likely thankful for after the incident.206
The laity also had considerable input on church practice. The church’s attempts
to maintain church purity were not only seen in its increased disciplinary actions, but also
in the frequent—and often protracted—debates regarding church practices.
Reconsideration and revision of Middleboro’s church practices was not unheard of
through its history, but never before was it so apparent in the records and the subject of so
much debate. It seems the members placed as much emphasis on reevaluating and
reestablishing their particular identity corporately as they did identifying those who did
not belong in the congregation in the first place. Several committees were formed during
Barker’s pastorate for consideration of everything from the church covenant to the type
of music played during worship.
Some matters of deliberation were important to the maintenance of the First
Church’s way of life, including revisions to the covenant and reconsideration of the
practice of relations. In the early years of Barker’s ministry, the church “revised and
modernized” the covenant and articles, “preserving the substance.” As with all covenant
renewals and relations in the church, the intent was to reaffirm and recommit to the
church’s historic principles. In a time when their neighboring churches were beginning
to reject orthodox doctrines of Christ, Calvinism, and the inerrancy of scripture, it was
important that the First Church—as a corporate body—revisit their accepted beliefs.207
206
Sprague, Annals, v.8:292; this event is not mentioned in any extant church record either, but took place
ca. 1786-1789.
207
This is clearly seen in the firm Calvinistic statements of their revised articles, and the clear reaffirmation
of the doctrine of the Trinity; see specifically articles I, V, and VII in Book of the First Church, 49-50:
Article I: “We believe there is only one living and true God…and that in the Godhead there are three
persons…and that these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance…although distinguished by
their personal properties.”
85
Moreover, the revised church covenant reestablished the belief in an informed
laity, especially among those joining the church. It was now broken down into
paragraphs and directed at the prospective member. It included the promise to cleave to
God by the “help of Divine grace,” making the Scriptures the “rule of…faith and
practice,” and submitting to the “watch and discipline” of the church. The covenant was
addressed to the person making a public profession, with the pronoun “you” beginning all
of the paragraphs except for the last two.
You do now, in the most solemn manner…avouch the Lord Jehovah to be your God. You give up
yourself…to the Lord. You resolve, by the help of Divine grace, to cleave to God and the Lord Jesus
Christ…You propose to make the Holy Scriptures, at all times, the rule of your faith and practice, so far as,
by the grace of God, you shall be enabled to understand them. You do also…give up yourself to this
church according to the will of God…
The final paragraphs switched the pronoun to “we,” and were the church’s promise to
watch over and pray for the individual desiring to join.208
We do then, cheerfully receive you into full communion with us, and promise, by the grace of God, to treat
you as a member of Christ’s body; faithfully and affectionately to watch over you, and always to be ready,
by our council and prayers, to promote your spiritual interest. And we depend on your prayers for us…that
all of us may be found faithful even unto death…
These differences in form were not meant to supplant the historic church covenant, but to
confirm it, and to assist those seeking to join with the construction of their relation, a
practice still very much required.
The manner of giving their relation, however, was another subject brought before
the church. The requirement to produce a relation was never in question, but the way in
which it was heard came under review. In June, 1791, a meeting was called to consider
“the laying aside the custom of reading before the Congregation the relation of a person’s
experience.” After long discourse, the church voted that Barker and two deacons form a
Article V: “We believe the Son of God has…made an adequate atonement for sin, and that all who are
saved will be wholly indebted to the sovereign grace of God through his atonement.”
Article VII: “We believe that for those who are ordained to eternal life…there is no condemnation…”
208
Book of the First Church, 47-49.
86
committee to consider the adoption of such a proposal. In September of the same year,
the church heard the report of their appointed committee, and “after much conversation,
rejected it, & Voted that when any Person is desirous of being admitted…the Chh be
notified to meet to hear his or her relation, & to examine him or her, so far as the Chh
think proper & expedient.”209 Although it appears there was some serious consideration
of dropping the practice, it does not seem it was ever in jeopardy of being discontinued.
The church had long practiced the hearing of relations in order to determine the
legitimacy of someone’s desire to join in full communion; it was the church’s mechanism
for maintaining doctrinal purity, and was not easily laid aside.
For many of these considerations of practice and doctrine it was not a matter of
doing away with established rituals, but of reconfirming the reasons for performing them.
The practice of relations and reading them aloud was further strengthened in the First
Church by the due consideration of its legitimacy, and it continued to be firmly required
until the end of the century. The revision of the church covenant was not meant to alter
the identity of the First Church, but to make the prospective member subscribe to explicit
points of doctrine that were being denied at the turn of the century, evidenced by a
revision to the articles of faith that were added to the revised covenant. The first point of
the new articles was obviously a defense against the rejection of the Trinity: “We believe
there is only one living and true God…and that in the Godhead there are three persons,
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that these three are one true, eternal God, the same
in substance, equal in power and glory, although distinguished by their personal
properties.”210 This was an expansion on the earlier article (article II), and guarded
209
210
Middleboro Church Records, June 23, 1791.
Book of the First Church, 49-50.
87
against heterodoxy. Both subjects—relations and the church covenant—were confirmed
in their usefulness for sustaining an informed laity, doctrinal purity, and communal
identity.
Not all matters of dispute were quite as important in sustaining the church’s
communal identity or doctrinal faithfulness, however. But it appears that the issues that
did not strike as deeply to the foundations of the church were the ones that caused the
most unrest between members. Despite the willingness of Barker to adapt to new
contexts and ideas, the First Church became characterized by greater conflict than seen in
previous decades—it started with music, but spread to other matters, and became the
defining attitude of the church in the first quarter of the next century.
Issues surrounding the congregation’s singing and its musical accompaniment
appeared early in Barker’s tenure. The first appearance of the issue in the records was
during a meeting in January of 1786, at Barker’s house, when several members
“discoursed…upon the importance of having this part of Divine worship, viz. singing,
conducted in a devout & edifying manner.”211 The exact concern was not specified, but it
was decided that several individuals would sit in the front to lead the singing. Initially
the subject seemed a small matter, seemingly resolved and barely noticeable in the
records. But the next month the issue was brought back up, and voted “that the Chh is
not satisfied with the present mode of carrying on that part of worship”, and that “the
vote of this Chh respecting singing, & singers [in January], be reconsidered.” A
committee was then formed to select the tunes that the church would sing in public
worship. This seemed to placate the concerned party, but in September 1787 another
meeting was called because “a number of the brethren [were] dissatisfied…with certain
211
Ibid., January 11, 1786.
88
tunes.” The party bringing their grievances wanted to sing the “old tunes.”212 It was
decided that the choristers sing the songs approved for in worship by the church, and that
at the end of worship they could sing one tune of their choosing. Again a committee was
appointed to deal with any disapproving parties. The conflict around singing went on for
several years, and was only further exacerbated by the debate over introducing a bass viol
into the worship.213 The subject remained in consideration as late as 1793, and
essentially fades from the records without mention of resolution.
The dispute over music was an indication of the implacable spirit beginning to
grow at the end of the eighteenth century. When Barker took a seat in the United States
House of Representatives in 1805, the church was left to itself as contentions mounted.
The church now spent much of its time trying to resolve cases in which it seemed
impossible for the sides to come to terms. The change in the church’s disposition was
likely the combined result of several factors. Firstly, it was likely due to anxiety caused
by a changing religious landscape. Congregational churches were not only changing, but
also frequently presenting arguments against the archaic beliefs of historic orthodoxy.
This likely created an insular membership, wary of any new practices, doctrines, and
even people. Secondly, there appeared to be a resistance to change in anything that had
sustained the church for so long. The certainty of the “tried and true” undoubtedly had a
profound effect on the congregation of Middleboro First Church. The church was more
than a century old, and already had weathered an eventful history. Even a church
distinguished and preserved by its adaptive nature was bound to have its lulls. That the
212
213
Ibid., September 26, 1787.
Ibid., May 3, 1793.
89
church survived this era of growing inward contention and outward pressures only adds
to the uniqueness of the Middleboro First Church.
By most accounts, the growing divisions had the potential to alter the future of
the church. In 1822 Barker’s successor, Emerson Paine, commented, “for a long time
there have been divisions and contentions in this place.”214 The problem, he felt, was so
bad that he requested a resignation of his pastoral duties in light of the church’s persistent
quarreling. Opposition to Paine had existed since his first coming to the church, and the
reasons are difficult to discern. Even the council called to consider his resignation
declared that the opposition to him had nothing to do with his doctrine, talent, or piety,
and was “wholly in considerations foreign to religion;”215 it is probable that the church
had spent so much time without a consistent presence in the pulpit because of Barker’s
frequent absences, that they had become too lay dominant—it appears the membership
had become unappeasable in the matter.
In Paine’s final address to the church he preached two sermons. The first
reminded the church of their responsibility to select a pastor who preached the doctrines
of Christ’s divinity, and the second was from 2 Corinthians 13:11: “Be perfect, be of
good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with
you.” The order and structures of his sermons warned the congregation that their
divisiveness and selfishness could easily lead to the same end as so many other churches:
if they continued in their way, then God would break covenant with them. Paine then
warned, “these division and contentions should cease,” and that the people must be
Emerson Paine, Sermons, Delivered at Middleborough, First Precinct, Lord’s Day, June 9,
1822…Occasioned by His Dismission From his Pastoral Relation to that Church (Plymouth: Allen
Danforth, 1822), 21.
215
“Result of Council, Middleborough June 4, 1822,” attached to Paine, Sermons…Occasioned by His
Dismission.
214
90
“united in the truth,” for, “should you become united in the belief of some one of the
erroneous systems of religion, prevalent at the present day, your union could not, in the
nature of things, last very long.”216 If not for a return to a strong leader in the pulpit and
the appeal to remember their heritage—including the events and mindset that led them to
this point—it may very well have caused an unrecoverable decline into obscurity or
dissolution of the First Church, at least as it was known at its founding.
When William Eaton took the pastoral position in 1824, the church was still
marked by a spirit of increased discipline and contention. George Stearns later remarked,
“the records made during our seventh pastor’s [Eaton] service show the church trying to
keep herself pure. She disciplined members for drunkenness, ‘hauling wood on Sunday,’
damming a brook to a neighbor’s inconvenience, prolonged neglect of worship, etc.” He
then opined that “some dead branches were wisely pruned away.”217 Eaton—like
Paine—was dismissed by his own request only ten years later, in 1834. Whether or not
Stearns’ opinion was correct, it is likely that if a strong presence did not return to First
Church’s pulpit, the church was in jeopardy of losing its communalism, and inevitably its
doctrinal orthodoxy.


Emerson Paine’s final sermons were full of laments and warnings, but his
prophecies of the church’s demise did not come to pass. Following his dismissal, and
during a two-year vacancy in the pulpit, the church added seventy-two new members, far
exceeding the fourteen brought in during Paine’s six-year stint; and during Eaton’s term
216
217
Paine, Sermons…Occasioned by His Dismission, 22-23
Two Hundredth Anniversary, 14.
91
fifty-three new congregants joined.218 With the selection of Israel Putnam in 1835,
moreover, the church underwent a noticeable change in its demeanor, away from the
discipline and contentiousness of the last four decades, and toward a renewed interest in
its heritage and historic, communal identity.
Retelling the past had been a common practice for the First Church throughout its
history. Covenant renewals had always been one way for the church to remember its
original foundations, and were frequently employed during the pastorates of Thacher and
Conant for the purpose of reminding their congregations of its doctrines and principles.
Barker’s covenant revision took into consideration the original covenant and articles,
only modifying it for ease of use by those framing their relations, but maintaining its
historic foundation. Anniversary sermons were also a recurring tradition for solidifying
the church’s corporate identity. Conant preached an Anniversary Sermon in December of
1776, in Plymouth, “In grateful Memory of the first Landing of our worthy Ancestors in
that Place.” Conant’s intent was to connect the memory of the churches in Plymouth and
Middleboro to their “ancestors,” who came not through Massachusetts Puritans, but the
Separatist Pilgrims. The implication of his sermon was that their current existence was
owing to that small band of travelers, along with their principles of freedom, “civil and
religious.”219 Barker, likewise, preached a century sermon in January of 1795,
chronicling the last one hundred years of the church, and imploring his congregation to
remember how God had preserved them for so long, so that they would not take it for
granted.220
218
Weston, History of the Town, 456; Book of the First Church, 106-111.
Conant, An Anniversary Sermon, 6.
220
Barker, The Stability of Christ’s Church, 25-31.
219
92
While accounts of the church’s history had long been retold in sermons and
renewals, the emphasis on remembrance had waned, especially after Barker’s death in
1815. Under Putnam, however, there emerged a renewed interest in preserving their
heritage and principles in published works that could stand as memorials for posterity.
Shortly after Putnam’s arrival, the First Church “took some action…on the subject of a
reprint of the catalogue of its members from the beginning, in connection with such
historical matter as might be deemed useful and of general interest.” In 1838 a
committee of three was formed, and in 1841 three more were added, but “little was
done…for several years.” It was Putnam’s Two Discourses on the Divine Faithfulness as
Illustrated in the History of the First Church in Middleborough that was credited for the
“revived…interest on this subject.”221 Putnam’s language was persuasive: if the First
Church was still in existence, and still clung to the same foundational principles, then it
followed that God was still with them, and that they had honored their covenant
commitment.
When we reflect on the length of [the church’s existence]…on the number of ministers who have here
preached…on the many hundreds of members…when we reflect that this beloved church still survives the
period of a century and half, and that it is looking forward with the prospect of living for centuries yet to
come:—and when…we consider that all the blessings it has experienced…are to be attributed to the grace
of its covenant-keeping God, we may well…say unto Him, “Thy faithfulness is unto all generations.” 222
Like the renewals, this had the effect of renewing his listeners’ interest in preserving the
God-honoring principles of the church; to stray from them was to doom the church.
With Putnam’s call to remember God’s faithfulness to the church, and the
church’s need to remain faithful for future blessings, the committee again took up the
task of publishing a church history. In 1852 they published the final product, the Book of
221
222
Book of the First Church, 1.
Putnam, Two Discourses on The Divine Faithfulness, 3.
93
the First Church in Middleborough.223 The Book highlighted all of the major points that
this paper has addressed: the church’s Separatist background; its church-state beliefs; the
laity’s participation, education, and influence; and the evangelistic spirit of the church.
The committee that compiled the Book hoped that it might “lead the living members of
the church to ponder well on the various relations they sustain to those who have died in
the Lord, to one another, and to all who…may yet be brought into spiritual communion
with themselves on earth and in heaven.”224 It was a memorial to remember and sustain
its identity for future generations.
The Book of the First Church contained, on almost every page, several references
to its Separatist pedigree. The history makes clear that the early residents, and first
worshippers, were citizens of Plymouth, and members of the Plymouth church. The Book
describes Samuel Fuller as “the son of the Pilgrim, Samuel Fuller;” it even gives a brief
history of Fuller, Sr.’s contributions to all of Massachusetts. Esteemed members, Madam
Thacher and Madam Morton, were said to have “the pilgrim spirit…in their hearts, and
the pilgrim blood…in their veins.” In the Book’s justifications for every practice of the
church throughout its history, it was careful to note how the church followed the
teachings of John Robinson and the earliest Separatists. The church was Congregational
because it was “in accordance with the platform of John Robinson, and the practice and
discipline of the churches of the Pilgrims.” The church did not have ruling elders
because “it was a decided principle of Robinson that the Elders should advise, but not
rule without the consent of the church.” Perhaps the most telling reference to Robinson
was on the voting rights of women.
223
224
It was voted that Putnam’s sermons should be attached to the Book.
Book of the First Church, 1.
94
Every member of a church, in full communion…male or female, has the right of voting in the church. But
John Robinson, our ecclesiastical father, says the churches do not admit the sisters to take a part in the
business matters of the church, as it is against the spirit of the directions of St. Paul in respect to them.
It was not enough to state that St. Paul stated the rule; Robinson did as well.225
The Book reminded the readers of the church’s rights both civilly and
ecclesiastically. In a section entitled “The Church is a Legal Body,” the rights of the
church were listed, and having now seen the events from its past we see the reason for
their inclusion. Among the rights of the people of God was the “free election of all their
officers.” Another stated, “every church has free liberty of administration,
recommendation, dismission, expulsion, and disposal of their officers and members.”
Perhaps the most interesting practice of the church, and one the church held to decisively
throughout its history, was the requirement that pastors, “on becoming such respectively,
are to be subject to the discipline and watch of the church, and before ordination are to be
admitted into full communion.” This practice leads to the next major theme discussed
repeatedly in the Book: the role of the laity.226
The Book of the First Church recalled often the laity’s knowledge and influence
in the church’s history. All officers of the church were selected from among the laity,
including pastors—even if a formality of sorts—as mentioned above. The Book made
clear the rights of the laity to choose, depose, censure, or excommunicate any member or
officer by a vote of the church; perhaps these rights were not unique to the First Church,
but it is worth noting the strong declarations of lay rights and pastoral limits. “No pastor
or elder has ever interposed to control or embarrass the action of this church.” Again, as
225
226
Book of the First Church, 4, 12, 29, 33, 57.
Ibid., 11-13, 32
95
noted in the first chapter, the church never had ruling elders, and a committee of elected
laypersons acted on all matters usually given to ruling elders.
The Book also took considerable space to give notice of some of its members, and
the descriptions outlined their influence and knowledge. Jacob Thomson “took lead in
the deposition of Mr. Palmer.” Samuel Prince was “much improved in Scriptural
knowledge.” Mercy and Alice Prince, along with Mrs. Thacher and Mrs. Morton, were
women esteemed as “important helpers in the church,” and as having influence on some
decisions of the church in the mid-eighteenth century. Samuel Eddy, Jr. was listed
among “every important committee, and especially in the troublous times which followed
Mr. Thacher’s death, he was relied on as well qualified to meet the crisis.” Benjamin
Thomas, it was said, “was well versed in the Scriptures, of inflexible virtue, sound and
clear orthodoxy, and conscientious in the performance of known duty, holding on upon
the old landmarks and not letting them go.” With as much description placed upon
prominent members as was placed upon the ministers, the implication was clear: the laity
had just as much of a role in the maintenance of the church’s principles.
Last among the Book’s main themes was the church’s evangelistic impulse. The
church took great pride in defining itself as evangelistic, always gathering in new
members. One indication of God’s faithfulness to the church, according to Putnam, was
the “evangelical ministry which…He has bestowed upon it.” The Book’s account of the
church’s history begins with the work among the Indians under Samuel Fuller; it speaks
of the revivalism of Peter Thacher in the Awakening; of Sylvanus Conant’s evangelistic
sermons throughout his ministry; and of Joseph Barker’s resolute defenses of orthodoxy
paired with a desire to unify the church. The Book also noted its revivals: 1740-42, 1807,
96
1808, 1818, 1823, 1830, and 1840. And it listed the churches that it helped to establish:
Titicut, Halifax, and the Central Congregational Church.
Along with all of the major points listed above, the Book of the First Church
included several other pieces of information useful to its intended readers and historians.
It contained the first extant copies of the church’s covenant and articles of faith, along
with the renewal of 1713, and Joseph Barker’s revised covenant, signifying the church’s
continued adherence to the “gospel principles on which [the church] was originally
established.”227 Other topics included were the statistics of admitted members under each
pastor and decisions surrounding singing, the order of the church, and pastoral power.
The Book surveyed the lives of its pastors, prominent members, and deacons. Finally, it
included a catalogue of every member admitted to the church since its establishment.
Under the leadership of Putnam and the creation of the Book of the First Church
the church had changed its focus from discipline and division to remembrance and pride.
Half a century after the publication of the Book of the First Church, the church took
further steps to remember its history and publicly display its longstanding faithfulness to
the “Pilgrim faith.” In 1894, the church “voted to provide for a suitable observance of the
two hundredth anniversary of the organization of the church.”228 The two hundredth
anniversary took place in August of that year; and the speeches given were collected into
a publication. It was a form of covenant renewal, resurrected from a page of the church’s
history, as a means to solidify identity and separate itself from those who had failed to
uphold the banner of orthodoxy. The event began with a sermon by the present pastor of
the church, G.W. Stearns, entitled “Two Centuries in God’s Work.” In it, he boasted,
227
228
Putnam, Two Discourses on The Divine Faithfulness, 14.
Two Hundredth Anniversary, 5.
97
“not many churches in our republic have raised and kept the banner of the cross upheld
longer than it has been done in this ancient town.”229
The First Church’s beliefs about their connection to the Pilgrims had a greater
significance than simply having a noble history of religious liberty or renowned
preachers; in their eyes it meant that they drew their lineage back to the early church
itself. R.G. Woodbridge, pastor of the Central Congregational Church in Middleboro,
mentioned the First Church’s “pedigree,” proclaiming, “Behold! the church at the Green
[Middleboro], Plymouth Rock, Leyden, Scrooby, Pentecost, Jesus Christ…Behold the
line in unbroken continuity!”230 Woodbridge’s point was not to say other churches were
not “true” churches, but the view of the First Church’s spiritual and physical lineage was
clear among the members: they believed that the Congregationalism, communalism,
covenants, educated laity, revivalism, evangelism, tolerance, and Separatism that defined
them were all inherited through the Pilgrims in Plymouth, the Separatists in England, the
apostles at Pentecost, and ultimately Christ himself. For a two hundred year old
church—that maintained a strong belief in a covenantal God—this undoubtedly had a
powerful effect.
The importance of the Two Hundredth Anniversary was the understanding that the
church had of itself as a Pilgrim church, and the theme was frequently revisited
throughout the event. The fact that many of the speakers were outsiders who attributed
the church’s “success” to a Pilgrim connection only helped to support the belief of the
First Church about their historic identity. In his oration, Thomas Weston described the
founders of the First Church as “elderly men and children of the Pilgrims of Plymouth,”
229
230
Ibid., 11.
Ibid., 103.
98
and when they organized the church, it was “in accordance with the simple forms of the
church of the Pilgrims—first gathered in Elder Brewster’s manor house in Scrooby, and
afterwards removed to Leyden, and from there to Plymouth—and which have continued
in our denomination to the present time.”231 In his publication on the history of
Middleboro town, Weston echoed the Pilgrim foundation with regard to the church’s
covenant and articles, stating, “They were in accord with the teachings of the venerable
John Robinson.”232 According to Weston, the church’s covenant, articles, and foundation
were thanks to the Separatist Pilgrims. Moreover, said Weston, the First Church was
sustained by an adherence to “the Pilgrim faith” over against “that of the Arminians, now
known as Unitarians.”233 Why did he not call it simply “the faith,” or “the Puritan faith,”
or “orthodoxy”? The intention was clear: it grounded the First Church’s identity in a
particular history, implying that it was the principles of the Pilgrims that had given it so
much success. All of the speakers contributed to that understanding.234
Former First Church pastor, Howard Hanaford, praised Middleboro for remaining
one of the few churches left in the Old Colony who had not forfeited orthodoxy for
Unitarianism. The reason, said Hanaford, was because its “ancestors” had followed in
the “shining footprints” of the Puritan age. Their lineage was drawn directly from the
earliest Separatists, “Robinson and Brewster were followed by the Mathers, the Fullers,
231
Ibid., 58-59.
Weston, History of the Town, 442. Weston’s History of the Town of Middleboro, Massachusetts was
published in 1906. It was voted at a town meeting (in March of 1894) that a committee prepare a volume
of the town’s history. The committee appointed Weston to prepare and write the volume. The History of
the Town covered more than the ecclesiastical history of the town, and included its involvement in the
several conflicts, land agreements, as well as treatment of the town’s culture and society.
233
Two Hundredth Anniversary, 61.
234
The “Pilgrim faith” theme was mentioned repeatedly throughout the event. Almost every speaker
mentioned something about the “Pilgrim faith.” A poem was even written entitled, “The Pilgrim Mothers,”
as a remembrance of the Pilgrim women who assisted in the continuity of the “Pilgrim faith.” See Two
Hundredth Anniversary, pp. 53 (“The Pilgrim Mothers”), 89-90 (“Mr. Eddy’s Address”), 93 (“Judge
Fuller’s Address”).
232
99
the Thachers, the Putnams of our later day; a noble army of confessors. You of the
generation now before me are…worthy successors of most worthy and admirable sires.”
He concluded, “Let us never forsake the Pilgrim faith…clinging fast to the glorious
doctrines of the reformed churches.”235 Again, it was not a general understanding of
faith, but a specific brand of faith.
The two hundredth anniversary marked the end of yet another century for the First
Church, and like all renewals of the past it reminded, convicted, and implored the
members to consider how the church might sustain its heritage into a new century. “The
result,” said the authors of its published form, “is now submitted to the public, in the
hope that the host of friends of the First Church…may find in these pages not only much
interest, but a quickening of Christian longing for the triumph of Christ and his
Church.”236 Whatever form Christ’s church might take in the next century, it remained
vitally important that the Separatist-Pilgrim foundations be sustained and protected for all
generations. The Two Hundredth Anniversary, the Book of the First Church, the
renewals, the relations, the covenant, and the articles all stood as witnesses against them
if the church should fail in upholding its long-maintained principles.


The two publications discussed above shared commonalities in the themes the
First Church desired to express. Those themes followed many of the same ones
expressed throughout this paper. Most importantly was the church’s Separatist
connection; both its “physical” descent from the first Separatists in Scrooby, Leyden, or
Plymouth under the leadership of Robinson, Bradford, or Brewster, and its “spiritual” or
235
236
Ibid., 45, 51.
Ibid., 5-6.
100
“philosophical” descent in the principles it adhered to: Congregational autonomy,
covenanting, lay participation, the progressive nature of truth, and sectarian notions of
church and state. It is vital to understand how important these connections were to the
congregants of the nineteenth century, how often they were addressed throughout the
church’s publications, and to what end.
The First Church identified with the past as a means for confirming its present,
and preserving its future. Often its narratives of the past were pietistic; that is not to say
they were false, but blemishes of its past were typically omitted or minimized to not
distract from the fact that the church remained established in the “Pilgrim faith.” The
effects of remembering and memorializing its past should not be underestimated in the
continuity of the First Church. Grounding the church’s identity in the past, and making a
convincing argument that its identity and convictions flowed directly from the “founding
fathers” of its heritage, gave confidence to its members, and helped to sustain its—real or
perceived—identity, against any change, decline, shift, or perversion that presented itself
against its founding principles. The First Church of Middleboro, Massachusetts proved
the power of identifying with its Separatist past. Even if one argued that the First Church
was different from a Separatist church by the end of the nineteenth century, it mattered
not, so long as the members believed they had sustained the same spirit of the Separatist
Pilgrims.
101
CONCLUSION
Covenanting in Christ to disciple our families and the world237
In his address to the First Church during its two hundredth anniversary, Howard
Hanaford listed four reasons he believed the church had continued for so long: stability,
progress, ideal, and ritual. Hanaford’s exposition of these defining characteristics helps
to summarize the main themes this paper has attempted to show as the reasons for the
First Church’s continuity throughout its long and eventful history. The order, however,
that best represents how they were shown in this study is ideal, progress, ritual, and
stability. It would be worth looking at each element again to see how the First Church
remained Puritan in an un-Puritan age.238
Hanaford considered the First Church’s maintenance of ideal, “based upon the
ideas of the Fathers of the New England faith and polity,” to be instrumental in their
continuity. In chapter one, we looked at how the political and religious principles of the
“fathers” provided a context within which the church sustained the beliefs it felt were in
keeping with its “founding fathers,” the Separatists. This context included the church’s
connection to the Plymouth Colony, which allowed for greater autonomy in religious
policy, as well as their connection to the Plymouth church, and the shared belief in
Congregational autonomy. The First Church went to great length throughout its history
237
238
From the webpage of the First Congregational Church of Middleboro [http://www.fccmiddleboro.org/]
All of the references to Hanaford’s sermon are taken from the Two Hundredth Anniversary, pp. 45-46.
102
to protect its Congregational autonomy from both civil and religious encroachments,
because to sacrifice those was to sacrifice the Separatist-Pilgrim ideal.
The Separatist ideal was also maintained in the purity of the church. The
Separatist principles were codified in the church’s covenant and articles, two documents
that were stringently guarded throughout the church’s history, and renewed often for the
purpose of maintaining the ideal, namely, a church composed of doctrinally competent
and outwardly holy individuals. Israel Putnam understood that the ideal of the “Pilgrim
Fathers” was maintained by the practices the church inherited from them:
It is very obvious, that our fathers of the first generation of this church regarded a life of practical piety as
an indispensable part of christian character, and as a uniform condition of church membership. Their
confession of faith, their covenant engagements, their solemn protestations against sin in all its forms, show
in a most convincing manner, what stress they laid upon true Holy Living.
The First Church maintained its emphasis on outward godliness as a measure of full
membership, for to “regard anything, short of a life of vital godliness, as evidence of real
christian character,” or to “dispense with it as a necessary qualification for admission to
[the church’s] communion” would, according to Putnam, be a day of ill omen. The
church covenant, articles, renewals, relations, and histories were all means of maintaining
the ideal.239
The next important attribute was that of progress. The ways in which this
mentality displayed itself throughout the church’s history varied: it informed the selection
of pastors, it was evident in the church’s support of revivalism, it allowed for flexibility
in church practice, and it supported greater toleration for those who held different beliefs,
but who were united in their cause for true religion and “essential” doctrine. The idea of
flexibility has in mind the church’s ability to bend, but not break, and to return to its
239
Putnam’s first discourse in Book of the First Church, 22-23.
103
original form after undergoing stress—either from without or within. The First Church
was a great example of this quality, and it must be attributed largely to the words of one
of its Separatist forefathers. As mentioned early in this paper, the effects of Robinson’s
statement about the nature of truth deeply impacted his hearers; so much so, that even a
pastor in 1894 reminded his listeners of Robinson’s words as if they already well knew
them, and understood their implication for the continuity of the First Church.240
Hanaford rightly summarized the character of the First Church on this point:
Truly conservative, she [the church] has welcome new ideas and methods, while not wholly losing her hold
upon the ancient landmarks and time-honored truths and usages of the Pilgrim churches of Britain or New
England. With the great author…of Congregationalism, John Robinson, this church…has ever believed
that God has yet more light to break forth for us from his most holy Word: so has welcomed to its arms the
revivalism of a Thacher and Whitefield…as well as the tender, persuasive, tranquil, earnest, paternal
ministry of a Putnam and a Conant. This church has been progressive, never retrogressive…241
The First Church was also a church of ritual. The First Church adopted various
rituals for the purpose of examination and recommitment in its constant attempts to
evaluate its covenant commitments and its doctrinal faithfulness. Corporate renewals, the
reading of relations, examination of prospects, ordination by the brethren, and the
recounting of history were a few examples of Middleboro’s church rituals that helped to
sustain its identity as communal, lay dominate, and doctrinally committed. The balance
between ritual and flexibility (progress) was a precarious matter at times, but the benefits
of an educated laity and the selection of charismatic, influential ministers provided
balance and stability to the church.
Several factors contributed to the stability of the church, including the three
characteristics mentioned thus far. One major contributor to its stability was its pastors.
The selection of ministers throughout Middleboro’s history played no small part in their
240
241
See Chapter II, pp. 48-49.
Book of the First Church, 45.
104
stability. Fuller set the foundation, Thacher provided an evangelistic spirit, Conant was a
champion of church-and-state causes, Barker reinvigorated the moral and Calvinistic
backbone of the church, and Putnam enlivened the desire to remember the church’s
history. Hanaford—and anyone who has studied the history of the church—recognized
the role of the pastors.
The stability of the church has been due…to the faithful ministries of the learned and devoted men who
have never failed in declaring the unadulterated gospel of Jesus Christ, having so gently and
wisely…preached the Word that all harmful schisms and heresies were avoided, and the church was
enabled to pursue the tenor of its way unmolested by Socinian schismatics or hypercalvinistic zealots.
Even the unpopular pastors served their purposes for the collective memory of the
church; both Palmer and Weld stood as warnings against the subtle attacks on church
purity and a reminder of lay power; and the short terms of Paine and Eaton, along with
the recurring vacancy in the pulpit, stood as reminders that the church must remain
capable of sustaining itself in the absence of strong leadership.
This brings us to the other factor that we would be remiss to leave out in speaking
of the church’s stability: the knowledge and influence of the laity. There were several
times in the First Church’s history when it was without a pastor, and it was the
congregation that maintained the ideal, progress, and ritual of the church. The stability
of the First Church of Middleboro was rooted in the Separatist ideal for a voluntary,
educated laity that was given a voice in church matters—and in the case of the First
Church, it was a strong voice. It is a reminder in any history about the religious climate
of the Old Colony to take due consideration of the laity as much as the clergy; and in the
Middleboro First Church, specifically, there was no single entity to thank for the
continuity it experienced.
105
ABBREVIATIONS
NEQ
WMQ
The New England Quarterly
The William and Mary Quarterly
REFERENCES
Secondary:
Becker, Laura A. “Ministers vs. Laymen: The Singing Controversy in Puritan New
England, 1720-1740.” NEQ, vol. 55 (March, 1982), 79-96.
Bumsted, John M. “A Well-Bounded Toleration: Church and State in the Plymouth
Colony.” Journal of Church and State, vol. 10 (1968), 265-279.
__________. The Pilgrims’ Progress: The Ecclesiastical History of the Old Colony,
1620-1775. New York: Garland Publishing, 1989; dissertation at Brown
University, 1965.
Bushman, Richard. From Puritan to Yankee: Character and the Social Order in
Connecticut, 1690-1765. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967.
Calhoon, Robert M. The Loyalists in Revolutionary America, 1760-1781. New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1965.
Christensen, Aaron F. ‘Pope’ or Persuader? The Influence of Solomon Stoddard in
Northampton and Western New England. PhD Dissertation. Stillwater, Ok:
Oklahoma State University, 2005.
Conforti, Joseph A. Samuel Hopkins and the New Divinity movement: Calvinism, the
Congregational Ministry, and reform in New England between the Great
Awakenings. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian University Press, 1981.
Cooper, James F. “Cuffee’s ‘Relation’: A Faithful Slave Speaks Through the Project for
the Preservation of Congregational Church Records.” NEQ, vol. 86 (June, 2013),
293-310.
__________. “Enthusiasts or Democrats? Separatism, Church Government, and the
Great Awakening in Massachusetts.” NEQ, vol. 65 (June, 1992), 265-283
106
__________. Tenacious of Their Liberties: The Congregationalists in Colonial
Massachusetts. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Daniels, Bruce C. The Fragmentation of New England: Comparative Perspectives on
Economic, Political, and Social Division in the Eighteenth Century. New York:
Greenwood Press, 1988.
Demos, John. “Notes on Life in Plymouth Colony.” WMQ, vol. 22 (April, 1965), 264286.
Dexter, Henry M. The Congregationalism of the Last Three Hundred Years, as Seen in
its Literature. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1880.
Ditmore, Michael G. “Preparation and Confession: Reconsidering Edmund S. Morgan’s
Visible Saints.” NEQ, vol. 67 (June, 1994), 298-319.
Fenn, William W. “John Robinson’s Farewell Address.” The Harvard Theological
Review, vol. 13 (July, 1920), 236-251.
Gildrie, Richard P. The Profane, the Civil, and the Godly: The Reformation of Manners
in Orthodox New England, 1679-1749. University Park: Pennsylvania State
University Press, 1994.
Goen, C. C. Revivalism and Separatism in New England, 1740-1800: Strict
Congregationalists and Separate Baptists in the Great Awakening. New Have:
Yale University Press, 1962.
Green, Samuel S. Gleanings from the Sources of the History of the Second Parish,
Worcester, Massachusetts. Worcester, MA: Charles Hamilton, 1883.
Hall, David D. “John Cotton’s Letter to Samuel Skelton.” WMQ, vol. 22 (July, 1965),
478-485.
Hamilton, Edward P. “The Diary of a Colonial Clergyman Peter Thacher of Milton.”
Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society. Third Series. Vol. 71
(October 1953-May 1957), 50-63.
Haskins, George L. Law and Authority in Early Massachusetts: A Study in Tradition and
Design. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1960.
Heimert, Alan. Religion and the American Mind: From the Great Awakening to the
Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966.
Howe, Daniel W. The Unitarian Conscience: Harvard Moral Philosophy, 1805-1861.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970.
107
Langdon, George D. “The Franchise and Political Democracy in Plymouth Colony.”
WMQ, vol. 20 (October, 1963), 513-526.
__________. Pilgrim Colony: A History of New Plymouth, 1620-1691. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1966.
Lockridge, Kenneth A. A New England Town: The First Hundred Years. New York:
W.W. Norton & Company, 1985; 1970.
Lovejoy, David S. Religious Enthusiasm in the New World: Heresy to Revolution.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985.
McLoughlin, William G. New England Dissent, 1630-1833: The Baptists and the
Separation of Church and State. In two volumes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1971.
Miller, Perry. Errand into the Wilderness. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of
Harvard University, 1956.
__________. “Errand into the Wilderness,” WMQ, vol. 10 (January, 1953), 3-32.
__________. “Jonathan Edwards to Emerson.” NEQ, vol. 13 (December, 1940), 589617.
__________. The New England Mind: From Colony to Province. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1953.
__________. The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century. New York: Macmillan
Publishers, 1939.
__________. Orthodoxy in Massachusetts, 1630-1650. Boston, MA: Beacon Press,
1959.
Morgan, Edmund S. “New England Puritanism: Another Approach.” WMQ, vol. 18
(April, 1961), 236-242.
__________. The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop. New York: Longman,
2007; 1958.
__________. Visible Saints: The History of a Puritan Idea. New York: New York
University Press, 1963.
Peterson, Mark A. “The Plymouth Church and the Evolution of Puritan Religious
Culture.” NEQ, vol. 66 (December, 1993), 570-593.
108
Pope, Robert. The Halfway Covenant: Church Membership in Puritan New England.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969.
__________. “New England versus the New England Mind: The Myth of Declension.”
Journal of Social History, vol. 3 (Winter, 1969-70), 95-108.
Robinson, Lewis J. “The Formative Influence of Plymouth Church on American
Congregationalism.” Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 127 (July, 1970), 232-240.
Sibley, John L. and Clifford K. Shipton. Biographical Sketches of Graduates of Harvard
University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In several volumes. Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Historical Society, 1873ff.
Sprague, William B. Annals of the American Pulpit: Unitarian Congregational, 1865.
New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1865.
Stokes, Anson P. Church and State in the United States. New York: Harper and Bros.,
1950.
Stout, Harry S. The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial
New England. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
Valeri, Mark. “The New Divinity and the American Revolution.” WMQ, vol. 46
(October, 1989), 741-769.
Walker, Williston. The Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism. Boston: 1960.
Watson, Patricia A. The Angelic Conjunction: The Preacher-Physicians of Colonial New
England. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee, 1991.
Weir, David A. Early New England: A Covenanted Society. Grand Rapids, MI: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005.
Weston, Thomas. History of the Town of Middleboro Massachusetts. Boston: The
Riverside Press, 1906.
Willison, George F. Saints and Strangers. New York: Reynal and Hitchcock, 1945.
Winship, Michael P. Godly Republicanism: Puritans, Pilgrims, and a City on a Hill.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013.
Worthley, Harold F. An Inventory of the Records of the Particular (Congregational)
Churches of Massachusetts Gathered 1620-1805. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1970.
109
Yarbrough, Slayden. “The Influence of Plymouth Colony Separatism on Salem: An
Interpretation of John Cotton’s Letter of 1630 to Samuel Skelton.” Church
History, vol. 51 (September, 1982), 290-303.
Ziff, Larzer. “The Salem Puritans in the ‘Free Aire of a New World.’” Huntington
Library, vol. 20 (1957), 373-384.
Published Primary:
Backus, Isaac. A History of New England: With particular reference to the denomination
of Christians called Baptists. Edited by David Weston. Newton, MA: Backus
Historical Society, 1871.
Barber, John W. Historical Collections, Being a General Collection of Interesting Facts,
Traditions, Biographical Sketches, Anecdotes, &c., Relating to the History and
Antiquities of Every Tow in Massachusetts, with Geographical Descriptions.
Worcester: Dorr, Howland, & Co., 1841.
Barker, Joseph. On the Unity of Christ’s Church, A Sermon Delivered in the TownHouse in Middleborough, April 16, 1807, Before Christians of several
Denominations. Boston: Lincoln & Edmands, 1807. Accessed through Evan’s
Early American Imprints.
__________. The Stability of Christ’s Church: A Century Sermon, Preached at
Middleboro, January 6, 1795. That day completing One Hundred Years since a
Church was first gathered in that Place. Boston: J. Bumstead, 1796. Accessed
through Evan’s Early American Imprints.
Book of the First Church of Christ in Middleborough, Plymouth County, Mass. with
Notices of other Churches in that Town. Boston: C.C.P. Moody, 1852.
Bradford, William. History of Plymouth Plantation. Edited by William Davis. New
York: 1908.
Browne, Robert. “A Treatise of Reformation Without Tarrying for Anie…,” in
Protestant Nonconformist Texts: 1550 to 1700. Edited by Robert T. Jones.
Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 2007.
Conant, Sylvanus. An Anniversary Sermon Preached at Plymouth, December 23, 1776.
In grateful Memory of the first Landing of our worthy Ancestors in that Place, An.
Dom. 1620. Boston: Thomas & John Fleet, 1777. Accessed through Evan’s
Early American Imprints.
110
__________. The Art of War, the Gift of God, A Discourse Delivered at Middleborough
before three Military Companies, April 6, 1759. Being the Day of General
Muster in the Massachusetts Province, for the Canada-Expedition. Boston: Edes
and Gill, 1759. Accessed through Evan’s Early American Imprints.
__________. The Blood of Abel and the Blood of Jesus considered and improved, in a
Sermon delivered at Taunton, December the First, 1763. Upon the Day of
Execution of Bristol, A Negro Boy of about Sixteen Years old, for the Murder of
Miss Elizabeth McKinstry. Boston: Edes and Gill, 1764. Accessed through
Evan’s Early American Imprints
The Confession of Faith and Church Covenant: Solemnly Made and Entered into by the
Church of Middleborough, December 26, 1694. Boston: 1771. Accessed through
Evan’s Early American Imprints.
Cotton, John. Seasonable Warning to these Churches. A Narrative of the Transactions
at Middleborough, In the County of Plymouth, in Settling a Minister in the Room
of the Reverend Mr. Peter Thacher, deceas’d with Some Reflections thereon.
Boston: 1746. Accessed through Evan’s Early American Imprints.
Hutchinson, Thomas. The History of the Colony of Massachusetts-Bay: From the First
Settlement Thereof in 1628, until its Incorporation with the Colony of Plimouth
Province of Main, &c. By the Charter of King William and Queen Mary, in 1691.
Salem: 1795; originally written in 1764.
Morton, Ebenezer. More last Word to these Church: In Answer To a Pamphlet published
by the Rev. Mr. John Cotton of Hallifax, entitled, Seasonable Warnings to these
Churches. Boston: Thomas Fleet, 1746.
Morton, Nathaniel. New England’s Memorial. Boston: 1669.
Norton, Jacob. A Sermon Delivered Thursday, July 27, 1815, at the Interment of the Rev.
Joseph Barker Pastor of the First Congregational Church in Middleborough, who
departed this life, July 25th, 1815, in the 54th year of his age, and the 34th of his
ministry. Boston: Lincoln & Edmands, 1815.
Paine, Emerson. Sermons, Delivered at Middleborough, First Precinct, Lord’s Day, June
9, 1822; Occasioned by His Dismission From his Pastoral Relation to that
Church. Plymouth: Allen Danfourth, 1822. Accessed through Evan’s Early
American Imprints.
Plymouth Church Records. 2 Volumes. Boston: Colonial Society of Massachusetts,
1920.
111
Prince, Thomas. An Account of the Great Revival in Middleborough, Mass. 1741, 1742,
during the ministry of Rev. Peter Thacher, with a notice of his character. Boston:
Re-printed by T.R. Marvin, 1842.
Putnam, Israel W. Two Discourses on The Divine Faithfulness as Illustrated in the
History of the First Church of Middleborough, Mass. During the Period of One
Hundred and Fifty Years. January 5, 1845. Published with the Book of the First
Church.
Records of the Colony of New Plymouth. Edited by Nathaniel Shurtleff. Boston:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1855.
Records of the Town of Plymouth. Plymouth: Avery & Doten, 1889.
Robinson, John. The Works of John Robinson, Pastor of the Pilgrim Fathers. 3
Volumes. Edited by Robert Ashton. London: John Snow, 1851.
Thacher, Peter. The Fear of God Restraining Men from Unmercifulness and Iniquity in
Commerce. Set forth in a Sermon. Boston: Boone, Gray, and Edwards, 1720;
Preached November, 1718. Accessed through Evan’s Early American Imprints.
Two Hundredth Anniversary of the First Congregational Church in Middleboro, Mass.
Middleboro: Published by the Church, 1895.
White, Henry. The Early History of New England Illustrated by Numerous Interesting
Incidents. Concord, NH: I.S. Boyd and E.W. Buswell, 1843.
Unpublished Primary:
Halifax Church Records. Digitized through the Massachusetts Board of Library
Commissioners. Accessed at [https://archive.org/details/recordsofchurch00unse]
Middleboro First Church Records: 1707-1821. Boston, MA: Collected and Digitized by
the Congregational Library & Archives, 2014. Accessed at
[http://congregationallibrary.org/nehh/series1/MiddleboroMAFirst4919]
Middleboro First Church Loose Papers. Received through email from the Congregational
Library & Archives. The collection is to be added to the collections of records
and relations already on their website at
[http://congregationallibrary.org/nehh/series1/MiddleboroMAFirst4919]
Middleboro First Church Relations and Personal Records. Boston, MA: Collected and
Digitized by the Congregational Library & Archives, 2014. Accessed at
[http://congregationallibrary.org/nehh/series1/MiddleboroMAFirst4919]
112
Middleboro Town Records. Massachusetts, Town Clerk, Vital and Town Records. Salt
Lake City, Utah: Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1973. Accessed at
[https://familysearch.org/search/catalog/406475?availability=Family%20History
%20Library]
Sylvanus Conant Sermons. Sermon Collection. Received through email from the
Congregational Library & Archives. Used with permission.
Notes
I have endeavored to edit the primary document citations for easier reading while
attempting to maintain the original meaning and appearance. The use of punctuation (i.e.
periods, commas, colons, etc.) has been modified, while spaces, capitalization, and
original spellings have not (unless difficult to understand). Also the use of u, i, j, v, and s
have been standardized to modern usage.
Dates prior to 1752 are according to the old style of date keeping, anything after is
considered the new style. I.e. the Middleboro First Church was formed on December 26,
1694, but most mentions of their anniversary after 1752 are mentioned on January 5
according to the conversion between O.S. and N.S.
The name “Middleboro” has undergone several changes. The town has been known as
Middleberry, Middleboro, and Middleborough. For the sake of ease I have kept it as
Middleboro throughout, unless otherwise noted, or used differently in a citation. The
First Church of Middleboro has frequently been shorthanded as the “First Church;” if
another church is considered containing “First Church” in the name, the distinction is
made.
113
VITA
Jonathan Scott Norman
Candidate for the Degree of
Master of Arts
Thesis: REMAINING PURITAN: THE HISTORY OF A SEPARATIST CHURCH IN
MASSACHUSETTS, 1620-1895
Major Field: Colonial America
Biographical:
Education:
Completed the requirements for the Master Arts in History at Oklahoma State
University, Stillwater, Oklahoma in May, 2015.
Completed the requirements for the Bachelor of Arts in Sociology at Oklahoma
State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma in May, 2008.
Experience:
Teaching Assistant for Oklahoma State University between Fall 2013 and Fall
2014.